*<**~  stamped  below 


CORRUPT   PRACTICES  LEGISLATION 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 

LIBRARY 


IOWA    APPLIED    HISTORY    SERIES 

EDITED   BY    BENJAMIN    F.    SHAMBAUGH 


CORRUPT    PRACTICES 
LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 


BY 
HENRY   J.    PETERSON 


PUBLISHED     AT     IOWA     CITY     10  WA     IN     19  12     BY 
THE     STATE     HISTORICAL     SOCIETY     OF     IOWA 


EDITOR'S  INTRODUCTION 

The  fact  that  social  and  political  innovations  are 
frequently  in  advance  of  the  prevailing  code  of  public 
morality  is  clearly  illustrated  in  the  history  of  pop- 
ular elections.    During  the  last  century  the  suffrage 
expanded  so  much  and  popular  elections  multiplied 
so  rapidly  that  the  purity  of  the  ballot  has  not  been 
adequately    protected    by    the    development    of    an 
extra-legal  code  of  public  morality.     And  so,  there 
has  grown  up  a  body  of  legislation,  known  as  "cor- 
rupt practices  acts",  which  aims  to  prevent  various 
illegal  and  corrupt  practices  connected  with  popular 
elections  —  such  as  "illegal  voting",  "bribery",  "un- 
due    influence",     "intimidation",     "personation", 
A   "treating",  "betting  on  election  results",  and  "im- 
proper campaign  contributions  and  expenditures". 
It  is  doubtless  true  that  corrupt  practices  legisla- 
tion  must   remain   more    or   less   ineffective    until 
j  supported  by  an  elevated  public  sentiment  which  will 
^  set  its  face  resolutely  against  all  forms  of  political 
\  corruption.    At  the  same  time  the  enactment  of  com- 
prehensive  corrupt  practices  acts  will  greatly  aid  in 
^   the  development  of  a  wholesome  public  opinion. 

Benj.  F.  Shambaugh 

Office  of  the  Superintendent  and  Editor 

The  State  Historical  Society  of  Iowa 

Iowa  City  1912 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper  on  Corrupt  Practices 
Legislation  in  Iowa  to  treat  the  subject  comparatively  as 
well  as  historically.  Accordingly,  a  chapter  embodying 
the  results  of  a  comparative  study  of  corrupt  practices 
legislation  in  other  jurisdictions  is  included.  Some  ap- 
plications of  the  results  of  this  historical  and  compara- 
tive study  are  made  in  the  final  chapter. 

While  the  materials  of  this  paper  are  drawn  largely 
from  legislative  sources,  current  political  literature  has 
been  found  useful.  To  Mr.  Dwight  Akers,  Secretary  of 
the  City  Club  of  Chicago,  I  am  indebted  for  assistance  in 
securing  newspaper  material.  And  to  the  Superintend- 
ent of  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Iowa,  Professor 
Benj.  F.  Shambaugh,  I  especially  wish  to  express  my 
gratitude  for  invaluable  suggestions  and  criticisms  gen- 
erously given  at  every  stage  of  the  preparation  of  the 
paper. 

Henry  J.  Peterson 

The  Iowa  State  Teachers'  College 
Cedar  Falls  1912 


CONTENTS 


General  Introduction         ..... 
I.     History  of  Corrupt  Practices  Legislation  in  Iowa 

THE   MICHIGAN   ACT   OF   1827 
TERRITORIAL   LEGISLATION   1836-1846 
THE  ACT  OF  1849 

PROVISIONS  OF  THE  CODE  OF  1851 
LEGISLATION  FROM  1851  TO  1880 
LEGISLATION  FROM  1880  TO  1897 
RECENT  LEGISLATION  1897  TO  1912 

II.     An  Analysis  of  Corrupt  Practices  Legislation 
in  Iowa 

BRIBERY 

UNDUE    INFLUENCE 

TREATING 

ILLEGAL  VOTING 

BETTING  ON  ELECTION  RESULTS 

RESTRICTIONS  ON   CAMPAIGN   CONTRIBUTIONS 

PUBLICITY  OF  CAMPAIGN  FUNDS    . 

HI.     A  Comparative  Study  of  Corrupt  Practices  Legis- 
lation 

BRIBERY 
TREATING 

UNDUE  INFLUENCE 
INTIMIDATION    . 


11 

16 
16 

18 
19 
24 
26 
28 
33 

50 
50 
54 
62 
64 
67 
68 
72 

74 
75 

76 

77 
78 


9 


10  APPLIED  HISTORY 

PERSONATION     .......  79 

BETTING  ON  ELECTION  RESULTS     ....  79 

RESTRICTIONS    ON    CAMPAIGN    CONTRIBUTIONS    AND 

EXPENDITURES     ......  80 

PUBLICITY    OF    CAMPAIGN    CONTRIBUTIONS    AND    EX- 
PENDITURES        ......  87 

STATE  AID  IN  CAMPAIGNS     .              .              .              .              .  91 

RESTRICTIONS  ON  PUBLICATIONS    ....  93 

ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  LAW :  PROCEDURE          .             .  96 

PENALTIES  FOR  VIOLATION  OF  ELECTION  LAWS            .  100 

IV.     Suggestions  for  Reform  in  the  Corrupt  Practices 

Legislation  in  Iowa          .....  103 

re-definition  of  corrupt  practices  .         .         .  103 

responsibility  in  handling  campaign  funds     .  101 

party  assessments           .....  101 
limitations  on  expenditures:   conveyance  of 

VOTERS        .......  105 

STATEMENTS  OF  CONTRIBUTIONS  AND  EXPENDITURES  105 
CONTROL   OF   VOLUNTEER   ORGANIZATIONS          .             .  106 
STATE  AID  TO  POLITICAL   CAMPAIGNS  :   OFFICIAL  IN- 
FORMATION           ......  107 

RESTRICTIONS    ON    PUBLICATIONS               .             .             .  108 

METHODS  OF  PROCEDURE      .....  109 

PENALTIES           .......  109 

SUMMARY             .......  110 

Notes  and  References         .         .         .         .         .113 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

The  value  of  the  ballot  has  not  always  been  appreciated 
by  the  voter.  Indeed,  there  are  not  a  few  citizens  who 
still  fail  to  realize  the  fact  that  the  privilege  of  choosing 
men  to  public  office  was  gained  only  after  centuries  of 
struggle.  Some  have  been  willing  to  sell  the  privilege  of 
voting  for  a  consideration.  Others,  feeling  a  dependence 
upon  their  employers  for  a  means  of  livelihood,  have  been 
too  easily  influenced  in  casting  their  ballots.  Moreover, 
certain  individuals  and  organizations,  fully  aware  of  the 
advantage  of  having  public  offices  filled  by  persons  whom 
they  may  control,  have  not  been  slow  to  take  advantage 
of  these  conditions.  Thus,  as  everyone  knows,  there  has 
been  much  corruption  and  no  little  intimidation  in  con- 
nection with  elections. 

To  remedy  these  evils  there  has  developed  a  species 
of  legislation  known  as  "corrupt  practices  acts",  which 
may  be  taken  to  include  all  laws  directed  against  conduct 
which  in  practice  or  design  tends  to  hinder  or  improperly 
influence  an  elector  in  the  exercise  of  his  right  of  fran- 
chise so  that  his  judgment  is  perverted  or  he  fails  to  cast 
his  vote  in  accordance  with  his  real  desire. 

In  early  Iowa  conditions  were  not  favorable  to  the 
growth  of  corrupt  practices.  Offices  were  neither  nu- 
merous, nor  lucrative,  nor  specially  attractive.  There 
were  no  well  organized  special  interests  to  seek  favors 
from  officeholders.  Consequently  there  was  little  oc- 
casion for  the  improper  influencing  of  voters,  and  the 
provisions  of  law  relative  to  corrupt  practices  were  brief 

11 


12  APPLIED  HISTORY 

and  fragmentary.  But  with  the  development  of  the 
country,  the  coming  of  railroads,  the  organization  of 
municipal  utilities,  the  building  of  factories,  and  the 
opening  of  mines  conditions  changed.  Here  as  elsewhere 
the  well  organized  industrial  interests  desired  special 
favors  in  connection  with  the  making  and  administration 
of  law. 

Since  the  year  1890  corrupt  practices  legislation  in  the 
United  States  has  been  aimed  primarily  at  the  control  of 
the  use  of  money  in  elections,  on  the  theory  that  preven- 
tion of  the  commission  of  election  offenses  is  more  im- 
portant and  desirable  than  provisions  for  the  punishment 
of  such  acts  after  they  have  been  committed.  Legislation 
along  these  lines  includes  (1)  acts  restricting  campaign 
contributions  as  to  source,  amount,  or  the  agency  for 
raising  funds,  with  corresponding  restrictions  on  cam- 
paign expenditures,  (2)  laws  requiring  the  publicity  of 
campaign  funds,  and  (3)  statutes  providing  for  State  aid 
in  conducting  campaigns. 

It  appears  that  New  York  was  the  pioneer  State  in 
this  kind  of  legislation,  having  enacted  in  1890  a  statute 
providing  for  the  publicity  of  campaign  contributions 
and  expenditures.  It  was  not,  however,  until  1907  that  a 
similar  law  was  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Iowa. 
Moreover,  a  beginning  has  been  made  in  Iowa  in  restrict- 
ing the  political  activities  of  officeholders  and  public 
employees :  Iowa  prohibits  campaign  contributions  by 
corporations  and  certain  public  officers  and  employees 
and  forbids  the  employment  of  paid  political  workers  on 
election  day.  But  Iowa  has  no  legislation  restricting  the 
amount  which  may  be  raised  or  expended.  Nor  are  there 
any  provisions  for  State  aid  to  parties  or  candidates  in 
■conducting  the  campaign. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  13 

The  need  and  importance  of  corrupt  practices  legis- 
lation are  coming  to  be  much  more  generally  recognized 
throughout  the  United  States,  and  corrupt  practices  acts 
are  becoming  correspondingly  more  numerous,  more  com- 
prehensive, and  more  specific.  Regarding  the  effect  of 
the  unrestricted  use  of  money  in  elections,  Governor 
Stokes  in  his  message  to  the  New  Jersey  legislature  in 
1906  says  that  ''the  elimination  of  money  as  a  controlling 
factor  in  our  elections  is  necessary  to  an  honest  expres- 
sion of  public  opinion.  The  rich  man  should  not  be  per- 
mitted, on  account  of  his  riches,  to  have  an  advantage 
over  the  man  of  small  means  in  a  contest  for  official 
preferment.  Capacity,  not  wealth,  manhood,  rather  than 
money,  should  be  the  test  of  fitness.  Legislation  can  do 
something  to  this  end."1  Mr.  Alton  B.  Parker  clearly 
points  out  the  effect  of  political  corruption  on  the  elector- 
ate —  which  after  all  is  the  important  thing  to  consider. 
"There  is,  however",  he  says,  "something  worse  if  pos- 
sible than  the  escape  of  such  offenders  [corporations  or 
their  agents  active  in  politics]  from  justice.  It  is  the 
gradual  demoralization  of  voters  and  the  dulling  of  the 
public  conscience  caused  by  the  efforts  to  make  these  vast 
sums  of  money  procure  the  ballots  they  were  intended  to 
procure,  corruptly  and  otherwise '  \2  Finally,  Lord  John 
Russell  briefly  sums  up  the  effect  of  controlled  elections 
upon  the  government  as  well  as  upon  the  electorate  by 
saying  that  "there  are  no  defects  in  the  distribution  of 
the  franchise,  however  unjust,  which  are  so  destructive 
of  public  virtue  or  the  credit  of  our  representative  system 
as  these  acts  of  bribery  and  corruption".3 

On  the  other  hand,  those  who  lack  confidence  in  the 
efficacy  of  corrupt  practices  legislation  declare  that  while 
many  of  the  laws  against  election  offenses  are  altogether 


14  APPLIED  HISTORY 

admirable  as  to  purpose,  their  enforcement  has  thus  far 
been  almost  a  complete  failure.  With  the  elections  large- 
ly under  the  control  of  political  parties  —  all  of  which 
are  at  times  guilty  of  more  or  less  corruption  —  with 
prosecuting  officers  often  themselves  beneficiaries  of  cor- 
ruption or  bound  by  loyalty  to  the  party,  and  with  courts 
inclined  to  give  persons  accused  of  election  offenses  the 
benefit  of  every  doubt,  it  is  said  that  there  is  no  adequate 
agency  to  compel  the  observance  of  the  laws.  Moreover, 
it  is  pointed  out  that  there  is  lacking  a  strong  public  op- 
position to  election  offenses.  Too  often  the  average  party 
voter  seems  to  hold  that  the  end  justifies  the  means,  and 
so  he  is  inclined  to  excuse  any  act  which  brings  triumph 
to  his  party.  Again,  it  is  observed  that  if  a  defeated  can- 
didate contests  the  election  he  becomes  unpopular  and  is 
scorned  as  being  a  "poor  loser". 

While  it  is  true  that  corrupt  practices  acts  have  been 
difficult  of  enforcement  and  public  opinion  has  not  yet 
been  fully  aroused  to  the  importance  of  uninfluenced 
elections,  nevertheless  corrupt  practices  legislation  has 
had  beneficial  results.  By  means  of  laws  passed  during 
recent  years  —  preventive  rather  than  punitive  —  temp- 
tations have  been  removed.  Furthermore,  the  value  of  a 
law  is  not  measured  by  the  number  of  cases  successfully 
prosecuted  under  it,  but  rather  by  its  success  in  removing 
evil  conditions.  The  average  citizen  is  not  a  law  breaker ; 
and  so  the  prevalence  of  corruption  is  always  greatly 
diminished  by  a  clear  statutory  definition  of  corrupt 
practices.  As  suggested,  the  method  of  procedure  in 
cases  of  corrupt  practices  has  been  one  of  the  serious 
handicaps  in  the  application  of  corrupt  practices  acts. 
With  changes  in  procedure,  such  as  have  been  adopted  in 
Wisconsin,  it  is  possible  for  public  spirited  men  to  take 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  15 

a  hand  in  the  enforcement  of  the  law  and  thus  arouse 
public  sentiment  against  political  corruption.  Moreover, 
that  public  opinion  is  being  aroused  to  the  need  of  cor- 
rupt practices  legislation  and  the  enforcement  of  such 
laws  may  be  inferred  from  the  public  indignation  against 
Lorimer  and  those  Senators  who  voted  in  favor  of  his 
admission  to  the  United  States  Senate. 


HISTORY  OF  CORRUPT  PRACTICES 
LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

THE  MICHIGAN  ACT  OF  1827 

For  the  historical  precursors  of  corrupt  practices  legis- 
lation in  Iowa  one  must  turn  to  the  statute  laws  of  the 
Territory  of  Michigan  and  of  the  original  Territory  of 
Wisconsin.  An  examination  of  the  laws  of  Michigan 
reveals  the  fact  that  as  early  as  1820  reference  was  made 
to  corrupt  practices  in  "An  Act  to  regulate  the  election 
of  a  Delegate  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  of 
America ' ',  two  sections  of  which  read  as  follows : 

Section  17.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  if  any  person  shall  be 
guilty  of  any  disorderly  conduct  at  the  election,  or  during  the 
time  of  the  examination,  canvass  and  enumeration  of  the  ballots, 
or  of  using  corrupt,  sinister,  indirect  or  undue  means  to  influence 
any  elector  or  electors  in  giving  in  his  or  their  ballots,  the  in- 
spectors, or  a  majority  of  those  acting  at  the  time,  are  hereby 
authorised  and  required  to  commit  the  offender  to  imprisonment 
for  a  space  not  exceeding  thirty  days:  and  all  sheriffs,  under- 
sheriffs,  constables  and  gaolers  are  hereby  strictly  charged  and 
required  to  aid  and  obey  the  inspectors  herein. 

Section  23.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  if  any  person  shall,  by 
bribery,  menace  or  other  corrupt  means  or  device  whatsoever, 
directly  or  indirectly  attempt  to  deter  any  elector  from  giving 
his  vote,  or  to  influence  him  in  giving  the  same,  and  shall  be 
thereof  convicted,  such  person  shall  forfeit  and  pay  for  every 
such  offence,  a  sum  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  to  the  use 

16 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  17 

of  the  territory  of  Michigan,  to  be  recovered  on  indictment,  or  by 
information,  or  by  action  of  debt  in  any  court  of  record.4 

These  two  sections  seem  to  overlap  or  conflict  in  that 
both  define  undue  influence  and  each  prescribes  a  differ- 
ent method  of  procedure  and  different  punishment.  It 
would  appear,  however,  that  Section  17  is  directed  pri- 
marily against  disorderly  conduct  at  elections,  while 
Section  23  attempts  to  prevent  the  intimidation  of  voters 
generally.  Moreover,  in  1825  the  provisions  of  the  act  of 
1820  were  made  applicable  to  elections  at  which  county 
officials  were  chosen.5 

In  1827  the  act  of  1820  was  revised  under  the  title  of 
"An  Act  to  provide  for  the  election  of  a  Delegate  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States."  This  act,  which  was 
approved  on  April  12th,  contains  the  following  provisions 
in  reference  to  corrupt  practices: 

Sec.  12.  That  if  any  person  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  give 
or  promise,  any  meat,  drink,  or  other  reward,  with  an  intention 
to  procure  his  election,  or  the  election  of  any  favorite  candidate, 
he  shall  forfeit  and  pay,  for  every  such  offense,  a  sum  not  ex- 
ceeding five  hundred  dollars :  and  if  any  person  shall  furnish  an 
elector  who  cannot  read,  with  a  ticket,  informing  him  that  it 
contains  a  name  or  names  different  from  those  which  are  written 
or  printed  therein,  with  an  intent  to  induce  him  to  vote  contrary 
to  his  inclination,  he  shall  forfeit  and  pay  a  sum  not  exceeding 
one  hundred  dollars :  and  if  any  person  shall,  by  bribery  or 
menace,  directly  or  indirectly  attempt  to  deter  any  elector  from 
giving  his  vote,  and  shall  be  thereof  convicted,  such  person  shall 
forfeit  and  pay,  for  every  such  offense,  a  sum  not  exceeding  two 
hundred  dollars.6 

Moreover,  by  an  act  approved  on  April  13, 1827,  it  was 
provided  that  the  election  of  members  of  the  Legislative 
Council  should  be  held  agreeably  to  the  act  regulating 


18  APPLIED  HISTORY 

the  election  of  Delegates  to  Congress.7  Thus,  provisions 
relative  to  corrupt  practices  which  were  first  enacted  in 
reference  to  the  election  of  Delegate  to  Congress  in  1820 
and  later  (1827)  revised  were  extended  in  1825  to  elec- 
tions at  which  county  officers  were  chosen  and  in  1827  to 
elections  at  which  members  of  the  Legislative  Council 
were  chosen. 

In  this  connection  it  is  important  to  note  that  the 
provisions  of  the  act  of  April  12,  1827,  were  in  full  force 
when  the  Iowa  country  was  made  a  part  of  the  Territory 
of  Michigan  in  1834.  And  so  it  may  be  said  that  the  first 
corrupt  practices  legislation  in  Iowa  consisted  of  Section 
12  of  the  Michigan  act  of  1827,  which  along  with  other 
laws  was  extended  over  the  Iowa  country  by  virtue  of  the 
act  of  Congress  of  June  28,  1834,8  and  the  act  of  the 
Legislative  Council  of  the  Michigan  Territory  of  Sep- 
tember 6,  1834,  providing  for  the  establishment  of  the 
original  counties  of  Dubuque  and  Demoine.9 

TERRITORIAL   LEGISLATION    1836-1846 

In  1836  the  Iowa  country  was  included  in  the  newly 
established  Territory  of  Wisconsin10  and  under  that 
jurisdiction  it  remained  for  two  years.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear, however,  that  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the 
original  Territory  of  Wisconsin  added  anything  to  the 
corrupt  practices  provisions  already  in  force,  except  two 
clauses  in  the  general  election  law  of  January  18,  1838, 
which  read  as  follows  : 

And  if  any  elector  shall  vote  more  than  once  at  any  election 
held  under  the  authority  of  this  act,  he  shall  be  fined  in  the  sum 
of  one  hundred  dollars,  to  be  recovered  by  indictment  before  any 
court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  and  the  whole  of  such  fine  shall 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  19 

be  appropriated  to  the  use  of  the  county  in  which  the  offense  may 
have  been  committed. 


And  if  any  person  shall  vote  at  any  election  who  is  not  a 
qualified  voter,  he  shall  forfeit  and  pay  any  sum  not  exceeding 
fifty  dollars  nor  less  than  twenty-five,  to  be  recovered  in  the  same 
manner  as  other  penalties  under  this  act  are:  provided  however, 
that  if  such  person  shall  have  been  considered  by  the  judges  of 
the  election  a  legal  voter  then  such  person  shall  not  be  so  fined.11 

By  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  12,  1838,  establishing 
the  independent  Territory  of  Iowa  the  laws  of  the  orig- 
inal Territory  of  Wisconsin  (including,  of  course,  the 
laws  transmitted  from  the  Michigan  Territory)  were  de- 
clared to  be  in  force  in  the  newr  Territory.12  Further- 
more, it  appears  that  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the 
Territory  of  IowTa  reenacted,  in  January,  1839,  the  gen- 
eral election  law  which  had  first  been  passed  by  the 
Wisconsin  Assembly  in  1838.13  Thus,  the  statutory  pro- 
visions relative  to  corrupt  practices  in  the  Territory  of 
Iowa  were  at  the  outset  the  same  as  in  the  original  Terri- 
tory of  Wisconsin.     Moreover,  the  act  of  January  25, 

1839,  with  its  twTo  brief  references  to  corrupt  practices 
wras  included  in  the  Revised  Statutes  of  1842-1843.Xi  But 
under  the  provisions  of  the  general  repeal  act  of  July  30, 

1840,  it  seems  that  the  corrupt  practices  legislation 
(Section  12  of  the  act  of  1827)  which  had  been  handed 
down  from  the  Territory  of  Michigan  was  lifted  from  the 
statute  books  of  Iowa.15 

THE   ACT  OF   1849 

It  was  not  until  1849,  nearly  three  years  after  Iowra 
had  been  admitted  into  the  Union,  that  the  General  As- 
sembly passed  a  distinct  corrupt  practices  act  under  the 


20  APPLIED  HISTORY 

title  of  "An  Act  to  preserve  the  purity  of  elections." 
Moreover,  this  act  seems  to  have  been  in  part  the  result 
of  charges  of  election  frauds  on  the  part  of  both  of  the 
leading  political  parties  in  connection  with  (1)  the  elec- 
tions of  1846,  1847,  and  1848,  (2)  the  attempts  to  bribe  a 
member  of  the  General  Assembly  in  connection  with  the 
election  of  United  States  Senators  in  1846,  and  (3)  the 
deadlock  of  the  General  Assembly  over  the  choice  of 
United  States  Senators  in  1846-1848. 

In  reference  to  the  election  of  1846  the  Iowa  Capita] 
Reporter,  presenting  the  Democratic  view,  says:  "Our 
federal  opponents  in  some  parts  of  the  state,  chagrined 
at  the  idea  that  the  thousands  of  dollars  lavished  by  the 
eastern  lords  of  the  loom  and  spindle,  through  the  Whig 
committee  at  Washington,  have  failed  to  throw  the  en- 
tire political  control  of  Iowa  into  their  hands,  have  so 
forgotten  their  obligations  as  men  and  citizens  of  a  re- 
public, as  to  menace  us  with  a  refusal  of  the  Whig  House 
to  go  into  an  election  of  United  States  Senators.  This  is 
in  character  with  those  political  desperadoes  who  shame- 
lessly boast  of  purchasing  freemen  at  the  polls  like  cattle 
in  the  shambles.  "10  Whereupon  the  Bloomington  Herald 
sarcastically  replied  that  the  Reporter  put  too  low  an 
estimate  on  the  Whigs  when  it  judged  them  by  the  ex- 
ample set  by  practical  Locof ocoism.  ' '  There  could  be  no 
slander",  it  declared,  "so  severe  on  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  Locof oco  party  as  the  fear  expressed  by  the  Reporter 
and  its  kindred  spirits,  in  supposing  that  those  who  vote 
their  ticket  can  be  bought. —  Think  of  this  ye  hardhanded 
rank  and  file !  The  leaders  of  your  party  say,  shame- 
fully say,  that  the  Whigs  have  succeeded  thus  far  in  this 
state  by  bribery,  and  corruption !  Now  we  ask  you,  in  all 
seriousness,  who  among  you  have  been  bought  with  the 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  21 

'gold  of  eastern  manufacturers?'  If  any,  come  out  and 
say  so.  We  cannot  believe  it.  We  will  not  believe  that 
you  are  as  worthless  as  the  Reporter  charges.  What  is 
the  condition  of  that  press,  that  charges  its  own  partizans 
with  being  bought  ?    Reflect. ' ' 17 

The  Capital  Reporter  answered  the  suggestions  of  the 
Herald  by  raising  two  questions:  "first;  whether  it  [the 
Herald]  denies  the  charge  that  a  considerable  sum  of 
money  was  sent  into  Johnson  County  by  the  Whigs,  for 
the  purpose  of  operating  upon  the  election;  secondly, 
whether  it  denies,  and  asks  for  the  proof  of  the  charge, 
that  direct  offers  of  bribery  were  made  by  one  of  the 
Whig  candidates  in  this  district.  "18  The  Herald  in  reply 
further  emphasized  the  low  estimate  the  Reporter  had  of 
its  own  party  members  in  suggesting  that  they  might  be 
bribed.  "The  Reporter  is  very  angry  with  us",  it  says, 
' '  because  we  drew  a  plain  and  natural  inference  from  its 
remarks  upon  this  subject  of  'bribery.'  It  stated  in  sub- 
stance, that  the  Whigs  had  succeeded  in  obtaining  all  that 
they  had,  in  the  late  election,  by  pipe-laying,  bribery,  hog- 
driving,  etc.  Now  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  if  there 
was  any  'bribery'  done,  who  was  bribed?  Certainly  not 
the  Whigs  —  they  were  right  anyhow,  and  if  any  one  was 
bribed  it  must  have  been  some  of  the  Reporter's,  hereto- 
fore, political  friends."19 

Again  in  the  election  of  1847  there  were  charges  of 
the  corruption  of  the  electorate.  The  Iowa  Standard, 
commenting  on  the  Democratic  victory,  finds  that  ' '  Some 
of  our  brother  editors  are  endeavoring  to  account  for  our 
defeat,  in  a  well  grounded  apprehension  that  there  has 
been  foul  play;  such  as  'hog  driving',  'pipe  laying',  etc. 
This  is  very  probable. —  We  say  to  our  friends,  never 
despair. —  Try  it  again.    '  Better  luck  next  time '. — '  Truth 


22  APPLIED  HISTORY 

is  mighty  and  will  prevail'  sooner  or  later.  Don't  waste 
time  and  words  about  'illegal  votes',  'importations',  etc. 
Bow  to  the  will  of  the  apparent  majority  for  the  time  be- 
ing, like  good  Whigs,  and  acknowledge  that  the  majority 
is  against  us."20 

The  election  contest  brought  by  Daniel  F.  Miller  ques- 
tioning the  right  of  William  Thompson  to  a  seat  in 
Congress  from  the  first  congressional  district  was,  per- 
haps, an  additional  influence  in  bringing  about  general 
legislation  against  corrupt  practices.21  This  contest 
grew  out  of  the  election  of  1848  and  was  based  on  the 
charge  that  the  election  officials  had  rejected  legal  votes 
as  being  illegal  and  at  the  same  time  counted  illegal  votes. 
Moreover,  the  Whig  platform  for  1848  calls  attention  to 
the  alleged  political  corruption  of  the  time,  declaring 
that  "under  cover  of  an  assumed  love  of  law  and  order, 
it  [the  Democratic  party]  has  undertaken  and  cast  from 
office  a  citizen  chosen  by  a  large  majority  of  the  popular 
vote,  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  represented  in  Con- 
gress by  men  elected  without  the  shadow  of  laws".22 

The  need  of  corrupt  practices  legislation  was  further 
emphasized  by  the  charges  made  by  Nelson  King,  the 
Representative  from  Keokuk  County,  during  the  session 
of  the  First  General  Assembly.  King  declared  that  at- 
tempts were  made  to  secure  his  vote  for  A.  C.  Dodge  or 
J.  C.  Hall  as  United  States  Senator.23  The  deadlock  of 
the  General  Assembly  for  two  years  in  an  effort  to  select 
United  States  Senators  was,  perhaps,  a  further  factor,24 
since  during  the  first  two  years  of  statehood  the  choice 
of  United  States  Senators  had  been  the  chief  issue  lead- 
ing to  the  charges  of  electorate  and  legislative  corrup- 
tion. 

Due  partly,  it  would  seem,  to  the  causes  above  given, 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  23 

the  General  Assembly  in  1849  passed  the  act  entitled 
"An  Act  to  preserve  the  purity  of  elections"  which  for 
that  time  was  a  rather  comprehensive  measure.  More- 
over, this  important  statute  includes  several  provisions 
that  are  not  necessarily  a  part  of  a  general  corrupt  prac- 
tices act.  Thus,  it  prescribes  the  qualifications  and  dis- 
qualifications for  voting,  the  method  of  challenging 
persons  suspected  of  being  illegal  voters,  and  the  oath 
or  affirmation  which  the  challenged  voter  was  required 
to  take  before  he  was  permitted  to  vote,  and  makes  pro- 
vision that  ballots  containing  misspelled  names  of  candi- 
dates were  to  be  counted  as  the  election  judges  might 
decide,  providing  the  names  on  the  ballot  sounded  as 
spelled.  The  act  also  provided  for  the  punishment  of 
election  judges  who  willfully  and  corruptly  violated  their 
duty  and  of  persons  found  guilty  of  stuffing  the  ballot 
box.  The  sections  particularly  defining  corrupt  prac- 
tices read  as  follows : 

Sec.  2  [3].  Any  person  who  shall  vote  more  than  once  at  the 
same  election,  or  who  shall  vote  at  any  election,  knowing  himself 
not  qualified  thus  to  vote,  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  fined  not  less 
than  one  hundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars,  and  be 
imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  not  less  than  one  month,  nor  more 
than  six  months. 

Sec.  4.  Any  person  who  shall  advise,  assist,  or  induce  an- 
other to  vote  twice  at  the  same  election,  or  to  give  his  vote  know- 
ing him  not  entitled  to  do  so,  shall  receive  the  same  punishment 
as  above  provided  for  the  principal  offender. 

Sec.  5.  Any  person  who  by  bribery  shall  attempt  to  influence 
any  elector  in  giving  his  vote,  or  who  shall  use  any  threat,  to 
compel  such  elector  to  vote  contrary  to  his  inclination,  or  to  deter 
him  from  giving  his  vote,  or  who  shall  furnish  an  elector  who 
cannot  read,  with  a  ticket  informing  him  that  it  contains  a  name 
or  names  different  from  those  which  are  written  or  printed  there- 


24  APPLIED  HISTORY 

on,  with  an  intent  to  induce  him  to  vote  contrary  to  his  inclina- 
tion, or  who  shall  fraudulently  or  deceitfully  change  the  ballot 
of  any  elector  by  which  he  shall  be  caused  to  vote  for  a  person 
different  from  the  one  intended  by  such  elector,  shall,  on  con- 
viction thereof,  be  punished  in  the  same  manner  as  is  above 
provided  for  persons  who  vote  twice  at  the  same  election. 

Sec.  4  [6].  Any  judge  of  election  who  shall  mark  the  ballot 
of  an  elector  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  for  whom  the  elector 
voted,  or  open  and  read  the  ballot  of  any  elector  after  it  has  been 
given  in,  and  before  it  shall  have  been  deposited  in  the  ballot  box, 
shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  be  fined  not  less  than  one  hundred, 
nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars. 

It  was  further  provided  that  prosecutions  under  the 
act  were  to  be  conducted  by  indictment  in  the  district 
court  of  the  proper  county.  Moreover,  the  act  repealed 
only  such  portions  of  former  statutes  as  were  inconsistent 
with  its  provisions.23 

PROVISIONS  OF  THE  CODE  OF  1851 

The  corrupt  practices  provisions  of  the  Code  of  1851 
amplified  the  legislation  of  1849  by  giving  more  complete 
definitions  of  bribery,  illegal  voting,  and  undue  influence 
and  by  adding  a  section  to  the  provisions  for  guarding 
against  collusion  between  election  officials  and  persons 
attempting  to  commit  election  frauds.26  Thus,  the  pro- 
vision of  the  act  of  1849  directed  against  bribery  was 
superseded  by  the  following  section: 

2691.  If  any  person  offer  or  give  a  bribe  to  any  elector  for 
the  purpose  of  influencing  his  vote  at  any  election  authorized  by 
law;  and  if  any  elector  entitled  to  vote  at  such  election  receives 
such  bribe,  he  shall  be  punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  five  hun- 
dred dollars  or  imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  one 
year,  or  by  both  fine  and  imprisonment  at  the  discretion  of  the 
court. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  25 

Furthermore,  it  appears  that  two  sections  were  added 
to  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  1849  in  defining  illegal 
voting.    These  read  as  follows : 

2694.  If  any  person  go  or  come  into  any  county  of  this  state 
and  vote  in  such  county,  not  being  a  resident  thereof,  he  shall  be 
punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dollars  or  by  im- 
prisonment in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  one  year. 

2695.  If  any  person  willfully  vote  who  has  not  been  a  resi- 
dent of  this  state  for  six  months  next  preceding  the  election,  or 
who  at  the  time  of  the  election  is  not  twenty-one  years  of  age,  or 
who  is  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  who  is  not  duly  qual- 
ified from  other  disability  to  vote  at  the  place  where  and  time 
when  the  vote  is  to  be  given;  he  shall  be  fined  in  a  sum  not  ex- 
ceeding three  hundred  dollars  or  imprisoned  in  the  county  jail 
not  exceeding  one  year. 

The  definition  of  undue  influence  was  broadened  by 
including  the  following  sections : 

2698.  If  any  person  unlawfully  and  by  force,  or  threats  of 
force,  prevent  or  endeavor  to  prevent  an  elector  from  giving  his 
vote  at  any  public  election  in  this  state,  he  shall  be  punished  by 
imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  six  months  and  a 
fine  not  more  than  two  hundred  dollars. 

2700.  If  any  person  procure  or  endeavor  to  procure  the  vote 
of  any  elector  or  the  influence  of  any  person  over  other  electors 
at  any  election,  for  himself  or  for  or  against  any  candidate,  by 
means  of  violence,  threats  of  violence,  or  threats  of  withdrawing 
custom  or  dealing  in  business  or  trade,  or  enforcing  the  payments 
of  debts,  or  bringing  a  suit  or  criminal  prosecution,  or  any  other 
threat  of  injury  to  be  inflicted  by  him  or  by  his  means,  he  shall  be 
punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  or  imprison- 
ment in  the  county  jail  not  more  than  one  year. 

Further  precaution  was  taken  to  prevent  dishonest 
election   officials   from  making   agreements   with   those 


26  APPLIED  HISTORY 

wishing  to  control  elections  by  incorporating  the  follow- 
ing section  : 

2702.  "When  any  one  who  offers  to  vote  at  any  election  is  ob- 
jected to  by  an  elector  as  a  person  not  possessing  the  requisite 
qualifications,  if  any  judge  of  such  election  unlawfully  permit 
him  to  vote  without  producing  proof  of  such  qualification  in  the 
manner  directed  by  law,  or  if  any  such  judge  willfully  refuse 
the  vote  of  any  person  who  complies  with  the  requisites  pre- 
scribed by  law  to  prove  his  qualifications,  he  shall  be  punished  by 
fine  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dollars  nor  less  than  twenty 
dollars  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  six 
months. 

Changes  were  also  made  in  the  penalties  prescribed. 
Indeed,  the  tendency  was  to  lessen  the  severity  of  the 
punishment  by  decreasing  the  amount  of  the  fine  and  the 
length  of  the  jail  sentence  by  leaving  to  the  court  dis- 
cretion as  to  the  imposing  of  a  fine  or  jail  sentence  and 
by  the  omission  of  a  minimum  penalty. 

LEGISLATION  FEOM  1851  TO  1880 

The  provisions  of  the  Code  of  1851  relative  to  corrupt 
practices  were  copied  literally  in  the  Revision  of  I86021 
and  later  in  the  Code  of  1873.28  Indeed,  from  the  time  of 
the  adoption  of  the  Code  of  1851  to  the  year  1880  there 
was  little  if  any  additional  legislation  against  corrupt 
practices  in  Iowa.  There  were,  of  course,  introduced  in 
the  General  Assembly  some  corrupt  practices  bills,  which, 
however,  failed  of  enactment.  For  instance,  in  1858  there 
was  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  a  bill  "to 
preserve  the  purity  of  elections"29  which  was  laid  on  the 
table  in  the  Senate.30  In  1868  Mr.  H.  C.  Rippey  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  introduced  a  bill  prohibiting 
betting  on  elections.    The  Journal  records  that  this  bill 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  27 

was  in  due  time  laid  on  the  table.31  Again  in  1872  a  bill 
"to  more  effectually  protect  the  ballot"  was  allowed  to 
perish  in  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on  Elections  to 
which  it  had  been  referred.32 

As  a  phase  of  the  general  agitation  against  the  liquor 
traffic  in  Iowa  there  was  introduced  by  Senator  W.  A. 
Maginnis  in  1876  a  bill  "to  regulate  the  sale  and  gift  of 
spirituous  malt  and  vinous  liquors  on  election  day."33 
This  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Suppression 
of  Intemperance,  which  failed  to  report  it  to  the  Senate. 
During  the  following  session  (1878)  the  House,  by  a  vote 
of  67  yeas,  28  nays,  with  5  absent  or  not  voting,  passed  a 
bill  "to  prohibit  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  within 
two  miles  of  cities  and  towns,  and  on  election  days '  \34  In 
the  Senate  the  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Sup- 
pression of  Intemperance,  upon  the  recommendation  of 
which  it  was  later  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary 
where  it  was  permitted  to  expire.35 

During  the  1878  session  of  the  General  Assembly  there 
was  also  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  "a 
bill  for  an  act  to  preserve  the  purity  of  elections."  This 
measure  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Elections  by 
which  it  was  reported  without  recommendation.  No 
action  appears  to  have  been  taken  by  the  House.30 

Meanwhile  the  liquor  agitation  resulted  in  the  passing 
of  a  law  in  1880  which  made  liquor  treating  at  or  within 
a  mile  of  the  polls  on  election  day  a  misdemeanor.37 
During  the  same  session  there  were  introduced  in  the 
Senate  two  other  bills  directed  against  election  offenses : 
one  was  "for  an  act  for  the  prevention  of  bribery  of 
voters  and  public  officers ' ',  which  was  lost  in  the  Senate 
on  engrossment;38  the  other,  which  proposed  "to  amend 
section  3993  of  the  Code  of  1873  defining  offenses  against 


28  APPLIED  HISTORY 

the  right  of  suffrage",  passed  the  Senate,3*  but  died  in 
the  House  Committee  on  Judiciary.40 

LEGISLATION  FROM  18S0  TO  1897 

During  the  decade  from  1880  to  1890  there  was  little 
legislation  against  election  offenses,  although  several 
corrupt  practices  bills  were  introduced  in  the  General 
Assembly.  In  1884  Senator  E.  J.  Gault  proposed  "a  bill 
for  an  act  to  punish  bribing  and  intimidation  of  voters 
and  to  preserve  the  purity  and  freedom  of  elections." 
The  Committee  on  Elections  after  amending  the  bill  re- 
ported it  favorably,  but  no  action  seems  to  have  been 
taken  by  the  Senate.41  Governor  William  Larrabee  in 
his  inaugural  address  on  January  14,  1886,  suggested 
the  need  of  strengthening  the  corrupt  practices  pro- 
visions of  the  law.  "The  successful  attempts  to  defile 
the  purity  of  the  ballot-box  elsewhere ' ',  he  declared,  ' '  al- 
ready appear  to  exert  their  influence  in  our  own  State, 
for  indications  of  illigitimate  voting  are  by  no  means 
wanting  in  our  larger  cities,  and  appear  to  demand  a 
revision  of  our  election  laws."42 

While  no  action  was  taken  directly  on  the  Governor's 
recommendation  to  revise  the  election  law,  there  was  in- 
cluded in  the  registration  act  of  that  year  a  section  which 
provided  for  the  punishment  of  persons  intimidating  or 
trying  to  intimidate  voters  by  gathering  around  the  polls, 
hindering  or  delaying  voters  going  to  or  from  the  polls, 
or  soliciting  the  vote  of  any  elector  or  attempting  in  any 
way  to  influence  him  in  casting  his  vote.  By  the  same 
act  it  was  also  made  unlawful  for  any  person  who  was 
not  an  election  judge  to  give  or  offer  to  give  tickets  to 
anyone  within  one  hundred  feet  of  the  polls,  or  for  any- 
one to  display  his  ballot  so  as  to  show  how  he  had  voted.43 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  29- 

During  the  same  session  there  was  also  introduced  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  a  bill  "to  further  protect  the 
purity  of  the  ballot  box"  which,  however,  seems  to  have 
failed  to  come  to  a  vote.44 

In  his  inaugural  on  January  12,  1888,  Governor  Lar- 
rabee  again  emphasized  the  importance  of  uninfluenced 
elections.  "The  purity  of  the  ballot  box",  he  said,  "is 
the  bulwark  of  our  liberties.  To  defile  it,  whether  by 
fraud  or  intimidation,  is  to  strike  at  the  very  foundation 
of  republican  government."45  Although  no  corrupt 
practices  legislation  was  enacted  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  this  session,  there  was  proposed  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  a  bill  which  seems  to  have  contained 
provisions  regarding  election  expenses.  It  passed  the 
House,46  but  did  not  come  to  a  vote  in  the  Senate.47 

Upon  his  election  in  1889  Governor  Horace  Boies  ex- 
pressed a  deep  interest  in  securing  legislation  that  would 
permit  the  voter  freely  to  cast  his  ballot  according  to  his 
own  wishes.  To  bring  about  this  condition  the  Governor 
in  his  first  inaugural  address,  which  was  submitted  on 
February  27,  1890,  favored  the  secret  ballot  in  these 
words : — 

The  duty  of  the  elector  is  plain :  by  the  most  sacred  of  human 
obligations  he  is  bound  to  bring  to  the  aid  of  the  government  of 
which  he  is  a  member  the  weight  of  his  unbiased  intelligence 
upon  every  political  issue  his  vote  helps  to  determine.  And  yet 
in  countless  ways  the  State  is  deprived  of  that  which  so  justly 
belongs  to  it.  .  .  .  Self-constituted  overseers  pursue  those  who 
stop  to  consult  their  conscience  or  exercise  their  reason  in  the 
discharge  of  one  of  the  most  important  of  duties.  The  strong 
overcome  the  weak,  employers  too  often  control  employes,  the 
rich  direct  the  poor,  and  all  of  these  rob  in  a  degree  the  nation 
and  the  State  of  that  upon  which  their  safety  depends  —  the 


30  APPLIED  HISTORY 

deliberate  judgment  of  those  who  exercise  the  almost  sacred 
privilege  of  the  elective  franchise.  .  .  .  It  is  a  humiliating 
fact,  and  yet  one  that  it  is  criminal  negligence  to  ignore,  that 
some  men  are  corrupt  enough  to  buy,  and  others  base  enough  to 
sell,  the  noblest  birthright  of  an  American  citizen. 

No  duty  is  more  plain  than  that  which  demands  of  the  legis- 
lative department  of  every  government  the  enactment  of  laws 
which  shall  to  the  utmost  limit  of  utility  surround  the  ballot-box 
with  safeguards  that  will  banish  from  all  elections  the  corrupt 
use  of  money  and  secure  to  the  state  the  unbiased  judgment  of 
each  elector.  This  can,  as  I  believe,  be  most  effectually  accom- 
plished through  statutes  which  compel  the  deposit  of  a  secret 
ballot,  the  contents  of  which  can  never  be  made  known  except  by 
him  who  deposits  it,  and  then  without  evidence  to  corroborate  his 
statement.  Such  laws  put  it  beyond  the  power  of  others  to  crit- 
icize the  elector's  ballot  who  desires  to  keep  it  secret,  and  compels 
those  disposed  to  use  money  corruptly  to  rely  upon  the  uncor- 
roborated word  of  men  base  enough  to  sell  their  votes.48 

In  response  to  the  Governor's  suggestion,  several 
bills  providing  for  the  so-called  "  Australian  ballot"  were 
introduced  in  the  General  Assembly,  but  not  one  of  them 
came  to  a  final  vote.49 

In  his  second  inaugural,  on  January  20,  1892,  Gov- 
ernor Boies  again  pointed  out  the  necessity  of  corrupt 
practices  legislation,  restating  practically  the  same  argu- 
ments for  the  secret  ballot.50  Petitions  from  the  people 
also  poured  in  on  the  General  Assembly.51  Finally,  in 
response  to  these  suggestions  the  General  Assembly 
passed  the  general  election  law  which  provided  for  the 
Australian  ballot.52 

In  his  first  inaugural  Governor  Boies  had  called  at- 
tention to  the  prevalence  of  the  intimidation  of  employees 
by  their  employers.53  That  such  intimidation  has  been 
and  still  is  practiced  scarcely  needs  proof  by  the  citation 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  31 

of  specific  instances.54  To  eliminate  this  evil  if  possible 
there  was  included  in  the  election  law  of  1892  the  follow- 
ing provisions : 

Sec.  24.  Any  person  entitled  to  vote  at  a  general  election  in 
this  state  shall,  on  the  day  of  such  election,  be  entitled  to  absent 
himself  from  any  services  or  employment  in  which  he  is  then 
engaged  or  employed  for  a  period  of  two  hours,  between  the  time 
of  opening  and  closing  the  polls,  and  such  voter  shall  not,  be- 
cause of  so  absenting  himself,  be  liable  to  any  penalty,  or  shall 
any  deduction  be  made  on  account  of  such  absence  from  his  usual 
salary  or  wages ;  provided,  however,  that  application  for  such 
leave  of  absence  shall  be  made  prior  to  the  day  of  election.  The 
employer  may  specify  the  hours  during  which  said  employe  may 
absent  himself  as  aforesaid.  Any  person  or  corporation  who 
shall  refuse  to  an  employe  the  privilege  hereby  conferred,  or 
shall  subject  an  employe  to  a  penalty  or  deduction  of  wages 
because  of  the  exercise  of  such  privilege,  or  who  shall  in  any 
manner  attempt  to  influence  or  control  such  voter  as  to  how  he 
shall  vote,  by  offering  any  reward  or  threatening  his  discharge 
from  employment,  or  otherwise  intimidating  him  from  a  full  and 
free  exercise  of  his  right  to  vote,  or  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
violate  the  provisions  of  this  section,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor,  and  be  fined  in  any  sum  not  less  than  five  dollars 
($5)  or  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  ($100). 55 

The  act  of  1892  also  contained  various  provisions 
similar  to  those  found  in  the  act  of  1886  guarding  against 
the  intimidation  of  voters  and  against  attempts  to  nullify 
the  secrecy  of  the  ballot.  The  law  made  it  illegal  to 
electioneer  or  solicit  votes  on  election  day  within  any 
polling  place,  or  within  one  hundred  feet  of  the  polling 
place;  to  interrupt,  hinder  or  oppose  a  voter  while  ap- 
proaching the  polls ;  to  interfere  or  attempt  to  interfere 
when  the  voter  was  within  the  voting  booth  or  when 
marking  his  ballot ;  or  to  endeavor  to  induce  a  voter,  be- 


32  APPLIED  HISTORY 

fore  voting,  to  show  how  he  intended  to  mark  or  had 
marked  his  ballot,  and  to  willfully  hinder  the  voting  of 
others.  Moreover,  to  further  protect  the  secrecy  of  the 
ballot  the  act  contained  provisions  making  it  unlawful 
for  anyone  purposely  to  expose  or  place  identification 
marks  on  his  ballot,  or  to  make  a  false  statement  as  to  his 
inability  to  mark  his  ballot. 

It  was  during  the  1892  session  that  Mr.  C.  H.  Robin- 
son introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives  "a  bill 
for  an  act  to  prevent  and  punish  improper  use  of  money 
at  elections."  The  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  78 
yeas,  2  nays,  with  20  absent  or  not  voting.50  In  the  Sen- 
ate, however,  the  bill  was  not  reported  by  the  committee 
to  which  it  had  been  referred.57  In  1894  Mr.  Robinson 
introduced  a  similar  bill;  and  again  his  measure  was 
passed  by  the  House.5S  It  was  then  taken  up  in  the 
Senate  and  passed  without  a  dissenting  vote.59  Thus 
was  enacted  the  first  legislation  in  Iowa  to  restrict  the 
purposes  for  which  money  may  be  used  in  an  election. 
The  act  makes  the  paying  for  political  work  for  a  candi- 
date, for  a  political  party,  or  for  any  measure  on  election 
day,  or  the  receiving  of  pay  for  such  work,  a  misdemean- 
or. Contracts  made  for  the  conveyance  of  voters  to  the 
polls  are,  however,  specifically  exempted.  The  same  act 
also  declares  unlawful  agreements  to  pay  or  receive  re- 
muneration for  refraining  from  voting  or  advising  others 
to  refrain  from  voting.60 

The  chapter  of  the  Code  of  1897  "On  Offenses  Against 
the  Right  of  Suffrage"01  includes  the  provisions  of  the 
Code  of  1851*2  and  of  the  act  of  1894  for  the  prevention 
and  punishment  of  the  improper  use  of  money  at  elec- 
tions;63 while  the  provisions  against  corrupt  practices 
found  in  the  general  election  law  of  the  Code  of  1897%i 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  33 

are  very  similar  to  those  of  the  general  election  law  en- 
acted in  1892.05  The  Code  of  1897  also  includes  pro- 
visions prohibiting  the  keeping  of  saloons  open  on 
election  day66  and  betting  on  election  results. CT 

EECENT  LEGISLATION  1897  TO  1912 

In  1898  Senator  Junkin  proposed  a  bill  denning  cor- 
rupt practices  in  elections  and  providing  penalties  for  its 
violation,  upon  which,  nevertheless,  no  action  seems  to 
have  been  taken.GS  There  was,  however,  incorporated  in 
an  act  passed  by  the  Twenty-seventh  General  Assembly, 
creating  the  Board  of  Control  of  State  Institutions,  a 
section  prohibiting  political  activity  or  political  contri- 
butions on  the  part  of  members  of  the  Board  or  any 
officer  or  employee  of  an  institution  under  the  control  of 
the  Board.69 

In  1902  Mr.  William  G.  Kerr  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  a  rather  comprehensive  but  somewhat 
loosely  drawn  measure  directed  against  corrupt  prac- 
tices.70 This  bill  placed  a  limitation  on  political  contri- 
butions and  expenditures  by  candidates  for  the  United 
States  House  of  Representatives,  by  candidates  for  State 
elective  offices,  or  by  other  persons  in  their  behalf.  The 
amount  of  the  contribution  or  expenditure  permitted  was 
graduated  according  to  the  number  of  votes  cast  for  the 
office.  To  secure  his  nomination  or  election,  or  both,  the 
candidate  or  others  working  for  him  might  contribute  or 
expend  in  a  district  having  not  more  than  5000  voters  a 
sum  not  to  exceed  $100 ;  for  each  100  voters  over  5000  and 
under  25,000,  $1.50;  and  for  each  100  voters  over  25,000 
and  under  50,000,  $1.00.  Contributions  or  expenditures 
in  excess  of  these  sums  voided  the  election  of  the  person 
making-  it. 


34  APPLIED  HISTORY 

The  Kerr  bill  also  provided  that  a  candidate  should 
file  a  sworn  itemized  statement  of  contributions  and  ex- 
penditures for  his  nomination  or  election  within  fifteen 
days  after  the  primary  or  election  with  the  clerk  of  the 
county  in  which  he  resided  and  a  duplicate  with  the  board 
or  officer  issuing  his  certificate  of  election.  Failure  to 
observe  this  provision  was  to  be  punished  by  a  fine  not 
to  exceed  $1,000.  Furthermore,  the  certificate  of  election 
was  not  to  be  issued,  salary  paid,  or  permission  given  to 
any  person  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  the  office  to  which 
he  had  been  elected  until  the  provisions  of  the  law  had 
been  complied  with. 

A  political  committee  was  defined  as  "every  two  or 
more  persons  who  shall  be  elected,  appointed  or  associ- 
ated for  the  purpose,  wholly  or  in  part,  of  directing  the 
raising,  collection  or  disbursement  of  money,  and  every 
two  or  more  persons  who  shall  cooperate  in  the  raising, 
collection  or  disbursement  of  money  used  or  to  be  used 
to  further  or  defeat  the  nomination  or  election  of  any 
person  or  any  class  or  number  of  persons  to  public  office 
by  popular  vote,  or  to  further  or  defeat  any  measure  or 
proposition  submitted  to  popular  vote".  Every  political 
committee  was  required  to  choose  a  treasurer  before  be- 
ing permitted  to  receive  or  expend  money  for  political 
purposes. 

All  money  collected  or  expended  by  a  political  com- 
mittee or  a  member  of  the  committee  must  first  pass 
through  the  hands  of  the  treasurer,  who  was  required  to 
keep  a  detailed  account  of  money  received  or  expended. 
All  other  persons  receiving  or  expending  more  than 
twenty  dollars  for  political  purposes,  unless  received 
from  or  paid  to  the  treasurer  of  the  committee,  were  also 
required  to  keep  itemized  accounts  of  receipts  and  ex- 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  35 

penditures.  These  statements  were  to  be  filed  within 
twenty  days  after  the  primary,  convention,  or  election  in 
the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  county  in  which  the  treasurer 
lived.  Any  one  receiving  money  or  other  thing  of  value 
from  a  political  committee  to  expend  for  it  was  required 
to  file  a  statement  with  the  treasurer  within  eight  days 
after  the  primary,  convention,  or  election. 

Moreover,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Kerr  bill 
no  claim  against  a  candidate  or  political  committee  might 
be  paid  unless  presented  for  payment  within  eight  days 
after  the  primary,  convention,  or  election,  unless  the  dis- 
trict court  on  investigation  decided  there  was  good  reason 
for  the  delay.  An  additional  statement  must  then  be  filed 
by  the  treasurer,  unless  such  item  had  already  been  in- 
cluded in  the  statement  filed.  Violation  of  these  pro- 
visions of  the  bill  by  the  treasurer,  political  committee,  or 
other  person  required  to  keep  accounts,  constituted  a  mis- 
demeanor. The  filed  statements  or  duplicates  were  to  be 
kept  for  four  years,  and  the  total  receipts  and  expend- 
itures published  in  two  newspapers  of  opposite  political 
parties  in  the  county  in  which  the  nominated  or  elected 
person  resided. 

At  any  time  during  the  term  of  an  elective  officer  (ex- 
cept members  of  the  General  Assembly  or  of  Congress) 
any  elector  might  present  a  written  application,  verified 
by  his  affidavit,  to  the  Attorney  General  pointing  out 
some  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  proposed  law  or 
some  other  law  by  such  officer,  his  agent,  or  political 
committee,  or  agent  of  such  committee  of  the  party  of 
which  the  officer  was  the  nominee,  to  secure  his  nomina- 
tion or  election.  On  the  ground  of  this  violation  the  elec- 
tor might  then  request  the  Attorney  General  to  bring 
action  against  the  officer  for  his  removal.    The  applicant 


36  APPLIED  HISTORY 

was  required  to  put  up  a  bond  of  $1,000  as  a  guarantee  of 
good  faith. 

Within  ten  days  of  the  filing  of  the  application  and 
bond  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Attorney  General  to  bring 
action  or  order  the  county  attorney  of  the  proper  county 
to  bring  action  against  the  person  accused.  The  county 
attorney,  if  so  ordered,  was  required  to  bring  action  with- 
in ten  days  after  being  notified  by  the  Attorney  General. 
If  the  Attorney  General  or  county  attorney  failed  to  take 
action  the  applicant  was  given  power  to  bring  action,  but 
at  his  own  expense.  Such  cases  were  to  be  given  prefer- 
ence over  all  other  civil  actions  on  the  docket  of  any  court 
of  the  State  in  which  the  suit  was  brought.  If  the  charges 
against  the  officeholder  were  sustained,  the  election  was 
voided,  the  vacancy  filled  as  directed  by  law,  and  the  de- 
fendant obliged  to  pay  the  costs.  If  the  charges  were  not 
sustained,  the  plaintiff  had  to  pay  the  costs.  Testifying 
in  such  cases  was  made  compulsory,  but  witnesses  were 
granted  immunity.  The  election  of  a  member  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  might  also  be  contested  by  any  elector,  but 
the  contest  was  to  be  decided  as  prescribed  by  law  then 
in  force. 

This  bill,  which  is  by  far  the  most  complete  corrupt 
practices  legislation  thus  far  proposed  in  the  General 
Assembly  of  Iowa,  was  on  motion  of  Mr.  Kerr  himself 
dropped  from  the  calendar.71 

Several  bills  had  been  introduced  during  previous  ses- 
sions of  the  General  Assembly  providing  for  primaries. 
It  was  under  the  leadership  and  at  the  suggestion  of 
Governor  Cummins  that  the  first  primary  law  was  en- 
acted. In  his  message  to  the  Thirtieth  General  Assembly 
primary  legislation  and  the  inclusion  in  such  legislation 
of  penalties  for  fraud,  intimidation,  and  bribery  were 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  37 

recommended.72  Responding  to  this  suggestion  the  legis- 
lature passed  an  act  providing  for  primaries  in  counties 
having  a  population  of  75,000  or  more.  This  act  declares 
the  offering,  giving,  or  receiving  of  bribes,  illegal  voting, 
or  aiding  illegal  voters,  to  be  offenses  against  the  pri- 
mary. To  agree  to  perform  any  service  in  the  interest  of 
any  candidate  in  the  primary  for  pay  or  to  receive  pay  for 
work  done  are  also  made  unlawful.  Conveyance  of  voters 
to  the  polls  for  a  reasonable  remuneration,  however,  is 
permitted.73 

During  the  1904  session  of  the  General  Assembly  va- 
rious other  bills  directed  against  corrupt  practices  were 
introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  none  of 
them  were  placed  on  the  statute  books.  Mr.  J.  F.  Lundt 
proposed  a  bill  making  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a  candidate 
directly  or  indirectly  to  use  or  distribute  money  to  buy 
cigars,  beer,  or  whiskey  to  secure  votes.  As  a  penalty 
the  bill  provided  for  the  revoking  of  the  offender's  can- 
didacy, depriving  him  of  his  right  to  vote  at  the  following 
election,  and  for  imposing  a  fine.74 

Early  in  the  same  session  Mr.  L.  D.  Teter  introduced 
a  bill  directed  against  election  offenses,75  but  later  with- 
drew it  and  incorporated  its  provisions  in  a  more  com- 
prehensive measure.  This  more  complete  bill  prohibited 
during  a  primary  or  election  campaign  the  use  of  liquor, 
cigars,  refreshments,  money,  railroad  passes,  or  "any- 
thing of  value  whatsoever"  to  influence  voters,  and 
provided  for  the  filing  of  statements  of  campaign  ex- 
penditures by  the  candidates  in  primaries  or  elections 
with  the  auditor  of  the  county  in  which  the  candidate 
lived.  These  statements  were  to  include  money  spent  by 
or  for  the  candidate  and  the  assessment  of  his  political 
party.     It  contained  the  further  proviso  that  political 

9618^ 


38  APPLIED  HISTORY 

assessments  were  permissible  if  the  money  was  used  for 
paying  the  expenses  of  holding  political  meetings.  The 
amount  of  money  which  a  candidate  might  be  assessed 
by  the  political  organization  was  fixed  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  limitation  on  a  candidate's  total  expend- 
itures in  the  Kerr  bill  of  1902.  As  a  penalty  for  the 
violation  of  its  provisions  by  a  candidate  the  bill  pro- 
vided for  the  voiding  of  his  nomination  or  election.  One- 
half  of  the  fines  collected  through  violations  were  to  be 
paid  to  the  informant  in  each  case.76 

Another  bill  introduced  in  1904  had,  it  would  seem,  a 
two-fold  object  in  view:  to  compel  careless  electors  to 
come  out  and  vote;  and  to  strengthen  the  law  of  1894 
directed  against  corrupt  agreements  to  refrain  from 
voting.  This  bill  made  failure  to  vote  on  the  part  of  an 
elector  who  was  physically  able  a  misdemeanor  and 
barred  the  offender  from  exercising  his  right  to  the  fran- 
chise for  two  consecutive  elections.77 

Not  discouraged  by  the  failure  of  his  earlier  measure, 
Mr.  Teter  introduced  in  the  House  during  the  next  ses- 
sion (1906)  a  bill  containing  the  same  provisions  regard- 
ing the  publicity  of  campaign  expenditures  and  the 
limitation  as  to  the  amount  of  political  assessment  of 
candidates.  It  added,  however,  a  provision  permitting 
payment  for  the  conveyance  of  voters  to  the  polls  out  of 
money  raised  through  the  assessment  of  candidates.78 
Two  similar  measures  were  also  proposed  by  Mr.  J.  I. 
Nichols.  One  provided  for  the  publicity  of  campaign 
contributions  and  expenditures  on  the  part  of  political 
officials  handling  campaign  funds.70  This  bill  was  later 
withdrawn.80  The  other  bill  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for 
political  officials  conducting  a  campaign  to  spend  cam- 
paign funds  for  intoxicating  liquor.81     This  bill  was  in- 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  39 

definitely  postponed  on  the  recommendation  of  the 
Committee  on  Judiciary.82 

In  the  meantime  the  New  York  insurance  scandal  and 
the  publication  of  the  Harriman-Roosevelt  correspond- 
ence had  called  the  attention  of  the  people  throughout 
the  country  to  the  political  activity  of  corporations  and 
to  the  necessity  of  ousting  them  from  politics.  As  a 
means  to  this  end  laws  were  passed  in  various  States 
restricting  or  prohibiting  corporation  contributions  to 
campaign  funds,  as  well  as  legislation  requiring  publicity 
of  political  contributions  and  expenditures.  This  nation- 
wide agitation  directed  the  attention  of  the  people  of 
Iowa  to  their  own  political  condition.  Here  the  railroads 
had  been  especially  active  in  politics  —  a  fact  that  is  well 
brought  out  by  Governor  Cummins  in  his  message  to  the 
General  Assembly  in  1906.  "In  this  state",  the  Gov- 
ernor asserted,  "the  railway  companies  are  the  political 
corporations,  and  while  they  have  not  introduced  here  all 
the  methods  which  have  been  observed  elsewhere,  it  is 
manifest  that  they  have  intended  to  direct  the  course  of 
the  state,  and  that  they  still  intend  to  direct  it  if  it  be 
within  their  power."83 

The  situation  as  regards  railroad  domination  in  Iowa 
politics  was  further  indicated  by  Mr.  Leon  Brown  in  the 
Register  and  Leader  in  discussing  the  reason  for  passing 
the  bill  prohibiting  corporation  contributions  to  cam- 
paign funds.  "It  was  the  demand  of  the  people",  he 
writes,  "that  the  railroads  get  out  of  politics  in  this 
state  that  gave  birth  to  primary  agitation  and  it  was  their 
persistent  and  intolerable  participation  in  the  effort  to 
control  politics  through  conventions  that  invited  the 
Peterson  bill  to  prohibit  them  from  financing  campaigns 
again  in  Iowa".84    The  same  paper  says: 


40  APPLIED  HISTORY 

Divorcement  of  polities  and  corporations  has  been  made  as 
complete  as  human-made  law  makes  possible.  The  Peterson  bill 
to  prohibit  corporations  from  contributing  to  campaign  funds  of 
political  parties  and  to  the  campaigns  of  candidates  for  office 
both  before  the  primary  and  the  general  election,  supplements 
the  primary  bill.  Not  again,  it  is  thought,  will  Iowa  see  the  spec- 
tacle of  railroad  corporations  financing  a  campaign  to  defeat  for 
nomination  and  for  election  a  man  devoted  to  the  mission  of 
securing  legislation  in  restriction  of  corporations.  Never  again 
will  the  railroads  spend  $250,000  to  defeat  a  single  candidate  for 
office  in  Iowa.S5 

That  the  people  of  the  State  were  becoming  aroused 
over  the  situation  is  evidenced  by  the  platforms  of  the 
two  leading  political  parties  in  1906.  The  Republican 
platform  adopted  at  the  State  convention,  which  was 
held  on  August  1st,  declared  that  "we  are  unalterably 
opposed  to  the  domination  of  corporate  influences  in 
public  affairs.  We  favor  the  enactment  of  stringent 
statutes,  to  purge  the  politics  of  our  state  and  nation 
from  the  corrupting  influences  of  corporate  power.  And 
we  pledge  ourselves  to  the  enactment  of  such  laws  as  will 
render  it  unprofitable  and  unpopular  for  corporations  to 
engage  in  politics  or  in  any  way  contribute  to  political 
campaigns."86  The  Democratic  platform  adopted  at  the 
State  convention,  which  was  held  at  Waterloo  on  August 
7th,  contained  a  similar  plank.  "We  believe",  it  is  as- 
serted, "the  politics  of  our  state  should  be  unhampered 
by  the  influence  of  corporate  power  and  are  in  favor  of 
stringent  laws  punishing  all  corporations  or  persons  rep- 
resenting them  who  contribute  campaign  funds  to  any 
political  organization.  "S7 

Governor  Cummins,  elected  on  an  anti-corporation 
platform,  also  gave  expression  to  the  popular  protest  in 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  41 

his  message  to  the  General  Assembly  which  met  on  Janu- 
ary 14,  1907 ;  and  he  recommended  legislation  to  remedy 
the  condition. 

That  it  has  become  a  custom  with  corporations  of  various 
kinds  to  make  contributions  to  accomplish  or  defeat  the  nomina- 
tion of  candidates  for  public  office,  and  to  assist  in  the  election 
of  candidates  for  public  office,  is  so  well  known  and  has  been  so 
completely  established  that  I  need  not  pause  to  prove  its  exist- 
ence. There  are  many  reasons,  of  the  weightiest  character,  which 
demand  an  immediate  prohibition  against  such  misuse  of  cor- 
porate funds,  coupled  with  a  penalty  of  imprisonment  for  the 
violation  of  the  law:  First,  the  growing  tendency  to  use  money 
in  political  campaigns  is  subversive  of  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  good  government,  for  it  not  only  destroys  purity  of 
motive,  but  it  overthrows  the  safety  which  is  always  found  in 
individual  and  independent  action.  Second,  it  is  a  plain  theft 
from  every  stockholder  who  does  not  give  his  assent  to  the  con- 
tribution, and  the  misappropriation  is  peculiarly  obnoxious  be- 
cause it  oftentimes  puts  the  money  of  a  stockholder  at  work  for 
a  candidate  whose  success  the  stockholder  does  not  desire.  Third, 
the  practice  gives  to  the  corporation  an  influence  in  public  af- 
fairs simply  because  of  the  money  contributed  —  an  influence 
which  is  necessarily  both  selfish  and  vicious.  Corporations 
should,  of  their  own  motion,  vigorously  exclude  themselves  from 
politics,  and  the  most  effective  way  to  give  them  strength  to  resist 
temptation  is  to  fix  a  penalty  for  participation,  so  severe  that  the 
honest  course  will  be  the  most  attractive  one.  I  recommend, 
with  all  my  earnestness,  the  enactment  of  a  measure  upon  this 
subject  that  will  stop,  at  once  and  forever,  so  odious  a  misuse  of 
corporate  property.88 

With  public  opinion  thus  clearly  crystallized,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  was  ready  for  action.  On  January  28, 
1907,  Senator  C.  E.  Peterson  introduced  in  the  Senate 
a  bill  to  prohibit  corporation  contributions  to  campaign 


42  APPLIED  HISTORY 

funds.  This  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Cor- 
porations of  which  Senator  Peterson  was  a  member. 
The  committee  reported  the  bill  for  passage,  but  with 
certain  amendments.  These  amendments  considerably 
strengthened  the  bill  by  making  its  provisions  applicable 
to  primaries  as  well  as  elections,  by  adding  safeguards 
against  indirect  corporate  political  contributions,  by  in- 
cluding corporate  bribery  of  public  officials,  and  by  modi- 
fying the  immunity  clause  for  witnesses  in  permitting 
the  prosecution  of  witnesses  guilty  of  perjury.  Slight 
changes  were  also  made  by  unanimous  consent  in  the 
wording  of  the  amendments  before  the  bill  passed  the 
Senate.89 

The  importance  of  the  Peterson  bill  and  the  signif- 
icance of  the  amendments  which  were  made  to  it  in  the 
Senate  warrants  its  presentation  in  full  as  first  intro- 
duced and  later  amended  by  the  Senate.  The  omissions 
are  bracketed,  while  changes  suggested  by  the  committee 
and  adopted  by  the  Senate  are  italicised. 

A  Bill  for  an  act  prohibiting  any  corporation  doing  business 
within  the  state  or  any  officer,  agent  or  representative  thereof 
acting  for  such  corporation,  from  giving  or  contributing  any 
money,  property,  labor  or  thing  of  value,  to  any  member  of  any 
political  committee,  party  or  employe  thereof,  or  to  any  candi- 
date for  any  office,  for  campaign  expenses  or  political  purpose 
whatsoever [.],  or  to  any  person,  partnership  or  corporation  for 
the  purpose  of  influencing  or  causing  said  person,  partnership  or 
corporation  to  influence  any  elector  of  the  state  to  vote  for  or 
against  any  candidate  for  public  office  or  candidate  for  nomina- 
tion for  any  public  office  or  to  any  public  officer  for  the  purpose 
of  influencing  his  official  action.  And  prohibiting  any  member 
of  any  political  committee,  party  or  employe  thereof,  or  any  can- 
didate for  any  office  from  soliciting,  requesting  or  knowingly 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  43- 

receiving  any  such  contribution  from  any  corporation  for  cam- 
paign expenses  or  political  purpose  whatsoever,  and  providing  a 
penalty  for  the  violation  thereof. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa: 

Section  1.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  corporation  doing 
business  within  the  state,  or  any  officer,  agent  or  representative 
thereof  acting  for  such  corporation,  to  give  or  contribute  any 
money,  property,  labor  or  thing  of  value,  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  any  member  of  any  political  committee,  political  party,  or 
employe  or  representative  thereof  or  to  any  candidate  for  any 
public  office  or  candidate  for  nomination  to  any  public  office  or 
to  the  representative  of  such  candidate,  for  campaign  expenses 
or  for  any  political  purpose  whatsoever [.],  or  to  any  person, 
partnership  or  corporation  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  or 
causing  such  person,  partnership  or  corporation  to  influence  any 
elector  of  the  state  to  vote  for  or  against  any  candidate  for  public 
office  or  for  nomination  for  public  office  or  to  any  public  officer 
for  the  purpose  of  influencing  his  official  action. 

Sec.  2.  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  member  of  any  political 
committee,  political  party,  or  employe  or  representative  thereof, 
or  candidate  for  any  office,  or  representative  of  such  candidate, 
to  solicit,  request  or  knowingly  receive  from  any  corporation  or 
any  officer,  agent,  or  representative  thereof,  any  money,  property 
or  thing  of  value  belonging  to  such  corporation,  for  campaign 
expenses  or  for  any  political  purpose  whatsoever. 

Sec.  3.  No  person,  and  no  agent  or  officer  of  any  corporation 
within  the  purview  of  this  act  shall  be  privileged  from  testifying 
in  relation  to  anything  herein  prohibited ;  and  no  person  having 
so  testified  shall  be  liable  to  any  prosecution  or  punishment  for 
any  offense  concerning  which  he  is  required  to  give  his  testimony 
[or  produce  any  documentary  evidence.],  provided  that  he  shall 
not  be  exempted  from  prosecution  and  punishment  for  perjury 
committed  in  so  testifying. 

Sec.  4.  Any  person  convicted  of  a  violation  of  any  of  the 
provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the- 


44  APPLIED  HISTORY 

county  jail  not  less  than  six  months  or  more  than  one  year,  and 
in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  by  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand 
dollars  ( $1000.00 ).90 

The  bill  as  amended  passed  the  Senate  without  a  dis- 
senting vote  —  only  three  members  being  absent  or  not 
voting.  In  the  House  of  Representatives  the  bill  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary.  That  there 
might  be  no  question  raised  regarding  the  freedom  of  the 
press  in  general,  and  in  discussing  political  issues,  can- 
didates, and  public  officers  in  particular,  the  committee 
recommended  that  the  bill  be  amended  by  striking  out  the 
period  at  the  end  of  Section  1,  and  inserting  a  comma 
followed  by  the  clause:  "but  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be 
construed  to  restrain  or  abridge  the  liberty  of  the  press 
or  prohibit  the  consideration  and  discussion  therein  of 
candidacies,  nominations,  public  officers  or  political  ques- 
tions."  This  amendment  was  adopted.  But  Represent- 
ative J.  F.  OffilPs  proposition  that  the  bill  be  amended 
so  as  to  apply  only  to  railroads  was  voted  down.  The 
bill  as  amended  then  passed  the  House  of  Representatives 
by  a  vote  of  85  yeas  and  9  nays,  with  14  absent  or  not 
voting.01  The  Senate  agreed  to  the  House  amendment, 
and  the  bill  as  thus  amended  received  the  Governor's 
signature  on  March  26,  1907.9- 

To  supplement  the  act  prohibiting  corporate  cam- 
paign contributions  Governor  Cummins  favored  legis- 
lation requiring  the  publicity  of  campaign  contributions 
and  expenditures.  In  recommending  such  action  to  the 
Thirty-second  General  Assembly  the  Governor  said : 

I  recognize  that  there  must  be  some  expenditure  of  money  in 
<every  political  campaign,  whether  for  nomination  or  for  election. 
There  are  legitimate  purposes  for  which  money  can  be  expended, 
and  to  this  extent,  when  contributed  by  individuals,  there  can  be 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  45> 

no  criticism  of  the  practice.  "We  will  all  agree,  however,  that  the 
expenditure  of  money  in  political  controversies  has  passed  be- 
yond a  fair  and  reasonable  limit.  Other  countries  and  other 
States  have  attempted  to  restrict  the  use  of  money  within  honest 
bounds  through  that  very  efficient  corrective  —  publicity.  I 
think  the  State  of  Iowa  should  do  likewise,  and  I  strongly  recom- 
mend a  law  that  will  require  not  only  political  committees,  but 
candidates  for  nomination  and  for  election,  to  publish  their 
expenditures.93 

Following  this  recommendation,  Mr.  L.  D.  Teter  again 
introduced  a  bill  providing  for  the  publicity  of  campaign 
expenditures,  which  contained  the  provisions  of  his  bill 
of  1906  and  in  addition  a  section  similar  to  a  provision 
of  the  Nichols  bill  requiring  a  statement  of  expenditures 
by  political  officials.  Mr.  Teter 's  bill  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Elections,  which  failed  to  report  it.94 

The  committee,  however,  reported  a  bill  of  its  own 
drafting  on  the  publicity  of  campaign  expenditures.  Mr. 
Teter  moved  to  substitute  his  own  bill,  with  the  last  sec- 
tion, which  limited  the  amount  of  a  candidate's  party 
assessment  and  the  purposes  for  which  money  so  raised 
might  be  used,  omitted.  The  substitute  was  lost,  and  the 
bill  with  some  proposed  changes  was  again  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Elections.  The  committee,  having 
again  considered  the  bill,  reported  a  substitute  bill  which 
passed  the  House  of  Representatives  without  a  dissent- 
ing vote.95  In  the  Senate  the  vote  was  32  yeas  and  7  nays, 
with  11  absent  or  not  voting.96 

The  act  as  passed  is  entitled  "An  Act  to  amend  title 
six,  Chapter  3  of  the  Code,  relating  to  elections",  and 
applies  to  primaries  and  to  municipal  and  general  elec- 
tions. By  its  provisions  candidates  are  required  to  file  a 
sworn  itemized  statement  of  all  contributions  and  ex- 


,6  APPLIED  HISTORY 

penditures  with  the  proper  official  within  ten  days  after 
the  primary  or  election.  A  statement  is  also  required 
from  the  committee  chairmen  of  the  various  political 
committees.  These  statements  are  open  to  public  in- 
spection at  all  times,  and  remain  on  file  as  a  part  of  the 
permanent  records  in  the  offices  where  filed.  The  act 
also  contains  a  section  prohibiting  treating  "in  or  about 
the  polling  place"  at  municipal,  primary,  and  general 
elections,  and  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  election  officials  to 
enforce  the  provisions.97 

As  passed  the  bill  was  made  clearer  in  regard  to  the 
disposal  of  the  publicity  statements.  The  original  bill 
merely  provided  for  the  filing  of  the  statement  with  the 
auditor  of  the  county  where  the  candidate  or  political 
officer  lived.  Moreover,  it  restricted  the  use  of  money 
raised  by  the  assessment  of  candidates  to  paying  the 
expenses  of  political  meetings  and  the  conveyance  of 
voters  to  and  from  the  polls.  The  act  would  seem  to  have 
been  weakened  in  that  the  original  provision  prohibiting 
treating  in  a  primary  or  election  campaign  was  struck 
out  and  the  provision  prohibiting  treating  near  the  polls 
on  primary  or  election  day  only  was  substituted. 

During  the  1907  session  a  State-wide  primary  law  was 
also  enacted.  This  act  copies  the  provisions  of  the  pri- 
mary act  of  1904  regarding  corrupt  practices  except  that 
it  makes  illegal  the  paying  or  offering  to  pay  for  political 
work  for  a  candidate  as  well  as  receiving  pay  for  such 
work.  The  provision  specifically  permitting  the  making 
of  contracts  for  the  conveyance  of  voters  to  the  polls  is 
eliminated,  and  instead  there  is  substituted  a  provision 
permitting  the  making  of  contracts  with  newspapers  for 
political  announcements  and  the  paying  for  securing  sig- 
natures to  nominating  petitions.98 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  47 

As  a  part  of  the  progressive  legislation  of  the  1907 
session  of  the  General  Assembly  there  was  also  enacted  a 
law  providing  for  the  so-called  commission  form  of  gov- 
ernment for  municipalities.  The  condition  leading  to  the 
passage  of  this  act  was  the  corruption  and  inefficiency  in 
the  administration  of  the  larger  cities  of  the  State  under 
the  old  system  of  municipal  government.  Under  the  old 
plan  of  city  government  it  had  been  easy  to  build  up  po- 
litical machines  through  the  control  of  elections.  John  J. 
Hamilton  describes  the  means  by  which  this  was  made 
possible  in  Des  Moines  in  these  words : 

The  methods,  too,  by  which  certain  aldermen  secured  and 
held  their  places  in  the  council  were  open  to  censure.  Bribery 
of  voters  was  shamelessly  practiced.  Ballot  boxes  had  been 
stolen  or  unlawfully  exposed  to  manipulation  before  the  count 
of  votes.  The  machinery  of  elections  and  nominations  was  often 
kept  in  the  hands  of  reckless  and  unscrupulous  men  and  in  some 
cases  of  actual  criminals.  Judges  of  election  or  agents  of  "the 
city  hall  ring"  unlawfully  admitted  to  seats  beside  them  were 
seen  to  "kill"  ballots  unfriendly  to  the  ruling  cabal  by  putting 
additional  pencil  marks  upon  them  so  that  they  must  be  thrown 
out.  Returns  from  the  "tough"  precincts  were,  in  close  elec- 
tions, held  back  until  the  machine  could  determine  how  many 
votes  were  needed  to  hold  it  in  power ;  which  number,  with  a  safe 
margin,  was  suspiciously  forthcoming.90 

As  a  part  of  the  plan  to  secure  popular  control  of 
municipal  government,  the  commission  government  stat- 
ute contains  provisions  similar  to  the  primary  act  of  the 
same  year  prohibiting  (1)  the  offering  or  receiving  of 
bribes,  (2)  illegal  voting,  and  (3)  knowingly  aiding  il- 
legal voting  at  municipal  elections.  The  commission  act 
differs  from  the  primary  act  in  its  provisions  against 
paid  political  workers  in  that  it  merely  penalizes  the 


48  APPLIED  HISTORY 

person  who  agrees  to  work  for  a  candidate  for  pay.  To 
further  lessen  the  possibility  of  the  building  up  of  a  polit- 
ical machine,  secure  more  efficient  service,  and  prevent 
the  assessment  of  officeholders  the  act  provides  that : 

Any  officer  or  employe  of  such  city,  who,  by  solicitation  or 
otherwise,  shall  exert  his  influence  directly  or  indirectly  to  in- 
fluence other  officers  or  employes  of  such  city  to  adopt  his  po- 
litical views  or  to  favor  any  particular  person  or  candidate  for 
office,  or  who  shall  in  any  manner  contribute  money,  labor,  or 
other  valuable  thing  to  any  person  for  election  purposes,  shall  be 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  upon  conviction  shall  be  punished 
by  a  fine  not  exceeding  three  hundred  dollars  ($300)  or  by  im- 
prisonment in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  thirty  (30)  days.100 

Other  bills  were  introduced  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives in  the  1907  session,  but  none  of  them  were 
enacted  into  law.  Mr.  W.  P.  Alfred  proposed  a  bill  to 
alter  the  code  definition  of  bribery  by  making  it  include 
treating.101  A  measure  to  prohibit  treating  by  a  candi- 
date before  "any  nomination  or  any  proposed  nomina- 
tion or  previous  to  or  during  any  election",  and  for  the 
publicity  of  campaign  contributions  and  expenditures, 
was  introduced  by  C.  B.  Paul.102  This  bill  proposed  also 
to  limit  the  purpose  for  which  money  might  be  used,  to 
promote  the  nomination  or  election  of  a  candidate,  to  the 
bona  fide  personal  expenses  of  the  candidate  and  the  ex- 
penses of  holding  political  meetings.  Even  such  expend- 
itures were  to  be  limited  to  certain  fixed  amounts, 
according  to  the  office  sought  by  the  candidate.  Thus  a 
candidate  for  a  State  office  might  pay  out  a  sum  not  to 
exceed  $750,  while  a  candidate  for  a  school  office  was  not 
permitted  to  spend  more  than  $25.  The  Paul  bill,  how- 
ever, seems  to  have  died  in  the  Committee  on  Elections.103 

During  the  session  of  1909  there  was  introduced  in 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  49 

the  House  of  Representatives  a  bill  to  limit  the  amount  a 
candidate  might  spend  to  secure  his  nomination  or  elec- 
tion to  five  per  cent  of  a  term's  salary.  The  bill,  being 
unfavorably  reported  by  the  committee  to  which  it  had 
been  referred,  was  indefinitely  postponed  by  the  House.104 
In  the  Senate  it  appears  that  Mr.  E.  G.  Moon  proposed 
an  amendment  to  the  election  law  so  as  to  provide  for  the 
filing  by  the  chairmen  of  the  various  political  committees 
of  statements  of  campaign  contributions  and  expend- 
itures five  days  before  an  election  and  ten  days  after  the 
election.  This  bill  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  24  to  19.105 
An  act  passed  at  the  1911  session  of  the  General  As- 
sembly (being  amendatory  to  the  law  of  1907  providing 
for  commission  government  for  cities)  further  empha- 
sizes the  desire  of  the  people  to  take  municipal  employees 
out  of  politics  and  protect  them  from  political  assess- 
ments by  including  a  provision  prohibiting  campaign 
contributions  by  members  of  the  fire  and  police  depart- 
ments of  commission  governed  cities.106  In  the  Senate 
there  was  introduced  a  bill  "prohibiting  candidates  for 
office  from  giving  away,  paying  for,  or  treating  to  any 
drinks,  cigars  or  other  refreshments,  or  paying  or  pro- 
viding for  the  admission  to  shows,  entertainments  or 
other  performances  and  providing  a  penalty  therefor." 
This  bill  was,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee 
on  Elections,  indefinitely  postponed.107  In  the  House  of 
Representatives  it  appears  that  Mr.  A.  A.  Lenocker  pro- 
posed a  bill  for  compulsory  voting  at  general  and  city 
elections.  Electors  under  seventy  years  of  age,  and  not 
having  a  reasonable  excuse,  were  to  pay  a  "tax"  to  the 
county  of  $3.00.  The  bill  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Elections,  whose  report  to  indefinitely  postpone  the 
bill  was  adopted  by  the  House.108 


ir 

AN    ANALYSIS    OF    CORRUPT    PRACTICES 
LEGISLATION   IN   IOWA 

BRIBERY 

Bribery  may  be  defined  as  the  deliberate  purchase  or 
sale  of  votes  for  money  or  other  consideration.  Its  pur- 
pose in  connection  with  elections  is  to  secure  for  the 
candidate  or  party  the  vote  of  a  member  of  an  opposing 
party  or  of  a  voter  who  claims  no  party  affiliations.  At 
a  primary,  however,  the  choice  being  between  candidates 
for  the  party  nomination,  the  purpose  is  to  secure  the 
support  of  one's  party  members. 

Bribery  is  an  offense  not  readily  susceptible  of  direct 
proof,  as  it  is  usually  the  result  of  a  bargain  between  two 
persons  both  of  whom  are  interested  in  keeping  the  fact 
secret.  Other  reasons  making  the  enforcement  of  any 
legislation  against  bribery  difficult  have  already  been 
suggested.  Thus,  while  Iowa  has  enacted  legislation 
directed  against  bribery,  cases  coming  before  the  courts 
are  not  numerous.  Indeed,  it  would  be  difficult  to  deter- 
mine to  what  extent  bribery  has  and  does  prevail  in  Iowa. 
It  is  doubtless  true  that  there  has  been  considerable 
traffic  in  votes  in  our  larger  cities  —  perhaps  more  espe- 
cially in  connection  with  municipal  elections.  Here  the 
inducements  for  bribery  are  great :  political  machines  to 
keep  themselves  in  power,  or  public  utility  corporations 
uniting  with  the  vicious  elements  to  keep  their  agents  in 
power,  have  frequently  resorted  to  vote  buying  and  other 

50 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  51 

forms  of  corruption.  Outside  of  the  larger  cities,  how- 
ever, it  is  doubtful  if  there  has  been  much  bribery. 
Party  feeling  has  always  been  strong  in  our  rural  com- 
munities, and  elections  throughout  the  State  have  not 
usually  been  considered  close  politically  —  except  in  some 
of  the  congressional  districts. 

According  to  the  Territorial  laws  of  Michigan  any 
person  who  directly  or  indirectly  attempted  to  influence 
a  voter  through  bribery  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  to 
exceed  $1,000  j1"9  but  by  the  legislation  of  1827  this  sum 
was  reduced  to  $200. 1X" 

Iowa  legislation  against  bribery  dates  from  the  year 
1849,  when  the  law  made  bribery  punishable  by  a  fine  of 
from  $100  to  $1,000  and  a  jail  sentence  of  from  one  to  six 
months.111  The  Code  of  1851  broadens  the  earlier  defini- 
tion of  bribery  by  including  the  offering  and  receiving  of 
bribes,  and  at  the  same  time  fixes  the  penalty  for  bribery 
at  a  fine  not  to  exceed  $500  or  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  for  a  term  not  to  exceed  one  year,  or  both.112  In 
municipal  elections  in  commission  governed  cities  per- 
sons giving  or  receiving  bribes  in  the  form  of  money  ' '  or 
other  consideration ' '  may  be  fined  from  $100  to  $500  and 
also  given  a  jail  sentence  of  from  ten  to  ninety  days.113 
The  act  regulating  primary  elections  provides  as  penal- 
ties for  the  offering  or  giving  or  receiving  of  a  bribe  in 
the  form  of  money  or  other  consideration  the  same  fine  or 
a  jail  sentence  of  from  thirty  days  to  six  months.114 

Moreover,  the  Attorney  General's  office  has  inter- 
preted the  bribery  provision  of  the  law  to  mean  that  the 
giving  of  pencils,  pens,  or  other  things  of  value,  however 
slight,  to  voters  for  the  sake  of  influencing  their  vote 
constitutes  bribery.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Supreme 
Court  has  held  that  it  does  not  constitute  bribery,  at  an 


52  APPLIED  HISTORY 

election  to  relocate  a  county  seat,  for  persons  interested 
in  the  location  at  a  particular  place  to  give  or  furnish 
facilities  for  the  convenience  of  the  whole  county. 

Some  party  members  who  would  refuse  to  accept  a 
bribe  for  voting  the  ticket  of  the  opposing  party  have 
been  willing  to  accept  money  for  refraining  from  voting. 
To  reach  this  class  of  offenders  an  act  was  passed  in  1894 
providing  that  a  person  who  makes  an  agreement  with 
another  to  pay  or  receive  money  or  other  valuable  thing 
for  not  voting,  or  for  inducing  another  voter  not  to  vote, 
is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  may  be  fined  from  $50  to 
$300  or  sentenced  to  a  term  in  jail  not  to  exceed  ninety 
days.115 

Unless  the  briber  has  some  means  of  knowing  whether 
the  purchased  vote  is  delivered,  money  expended  for 
bribery  is,  of  course,  fruitless.  To  ascertain  how  ballots 
have  been  cast,  various  methods  have  been  resorted  to  — 
such  as  marking  ballots,  showing  of  the  ballots  by  the 
voter,  or  collusion  with  the  election  officials.  To  fortify 
bribery  laws  provisions  are  therefore  necessary  to  pre- 
serve the  secrecy  of  the  ballot.  An  act  of  1885  providing 
for  the  registration  of  voters  for  municipal  elections  con- 
tained a  section  for  this  purpose,  making  it  illegal  for  a 
voter  to  expose  his  ballot  in  such  a  way  as  to  intentionally 
show  how  he  voted  or  for  any  one  to  give  or  offer  tickets 
to  any  one  not  an  election  judge  within  one  hundred  feet 
of  the  polls.  It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  election  judges 
to  prevent  the  violation  of  these  provisions  by  posting- 
notices  within  one  hundred  feet  of  the  polling  place  and 
' '  in  other  ways ' ',  and  at  the  same  time  to  cause  the  arrest 
of  offenders.  Violation  of  the  act  constituted  a  misde- 
meanor, penalized  by  a  fine  of  from  $50  to  $200  or  by  a  jail 
sentence  of  from  twenty  days  to  six  months,  or  both.110 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  53 

The  general  election  law  of  1892  which  provides  for 
the  Australian  ballot  —  the  adoption  of  which  was  for  the 
purpose  of  eliminating  bribery  and  intimidation  —  con- 
tains similar  provisions  for  maintaining  the  secrecy  of 
the  ballot.  The  act  defines  as  election  offenses  the  fol- 
lowing: (1)  purposely  exposing  one's  ballot;  (2)  attempt- 
ing to  induce  a  voter  to  show  how  he  intends  to  mark  or 
has  marked  his  ballot;  (3)  placing  on  the  ballot  any 
identification  marks;  (4)  collusion  between  the  parties 
concerned  in  a  bribery  agreement  and  election  officials 
by  the  voters  making  false  statements  regarding  their 
inability  to  mark  the  ballot.  All  these  acts  are  punish- 
able by  a  fine  of  from  $5  to  $100  or  a  jail  sentence  of  from 
ten  to  thirty  days,  or  both.117 

The  Code  of  1897  contains  the  provisions  of  the  law  of 
1892,  except  that  it  does  not  charge  election  judges  with 
the  enforcement  of  the  statute  and  incorporates  the  def- 
inition and  penalty  for  bribery  as  given  in  the  Code  of 
1851  along  with  the  provisions  of  the  law  of  1894  regard- 
ing payments  for  refraining  from  voting  or  inducing 
others  to  refrain  from  voting.  Since  the  primary  act  and 
the  act  providing  for  commission  government  in  certain 
cities  were  passed  after  the  enactment  of  the  Code  of 
1897  their  provisions  are  of  course  not  found  therein. 

In  interpreting  the  section  of  the  Code  of  1897  pro- 
hibiting the  placing  of  distinguishing  marks  on  the  ballot 
by  voters,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Iowa  has  held  that  where 
a  voter  marked  the  squares  opposite  each  candidate's 
name  on  a  party  ticket  and  also  made  a  mark  in  the  circle 
at  the  head  of  the  other  party  ticket,  the  latter  could  not 
be  considered  as  an  identification  mark.118  However,  a 
ballot  crossed  in  the  squares  opposite  all  the  names  of  a 
party  ticket  —  except  for  township  trustee  which  was  left 


54  APPLIED  HISTORY 

blank  and  a  cross  inserted  in  the  square  opposite  the 
blank  for  township  trustee  in  another  party  ticket  where 
there  was  no  candidate  for  township  trustee  —  the  ballot 
was  considered  as  marked  for  identification  purposes 
since  there  was  no  apparent  reason  for  such  mark  except 
to  serve  as  an  identification  mark  (Morrison  vs.  Pepper- 
man,  112  Iowa  471).  Furthermore,  where  the  unauthor- 
ized mark  is  not  of  a  character  to  be  used  readily  for  the 
purpose  of  identification  the  ballot  ought  to  be  counted ; 
but  where  the  unauthorized  marks  are  made  deliberately 
and  may  be  used  as  a  means  of  identifying  the  ballot  it 
ought  to  be  rejected  (Whittam  vs.  Zahorik,  91  Iowa  23). 
While  bribery  is  usually  the  result  of  a  bargain  be- 
tween two  persons,  bribery  en  masse  is  possible.  Thus, 
the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  a  promise  made  by  a 
candidate  for  a  county  office  to  serve  for  a  less  amount 
than  the  fees  provided  by  law  and  to  turn  the  balance 
into  the  county  treasury  as  an  inducement  to  get  votes  is 
indirect  bribery  since  most  of  the  voters  are  taxpayers. 
Hence  it  was  held  that  the  offer  not  only  invalidated  the 
votes  cast  by  those  influenced  by  the  offer,  but  also  voided 
the  election  of  the  offending  candidate.110  In  rendering 
this  opinion  the  Supreme  Court  pointed  out  the  evil  of 
such  a  system  of  bidding  for  office  as  tending  to  divert 
the  elector's  attention  from  the  personal  merits  of  the 
candidates  to  the  price  to  be  paid  for  the  office.  Aside 
from  the  evil  effect  on  the  attitude  of  the  voters  in  respect 
to  their  duties  as  citizens,  it  would  lead,  the  court  held,  to 
the  election  of  incapable  and  untrustworthy  officers. 

UNDUE   INFLUENCE 

Undue  influence  may  be  defined  as  the  bringing  to 
bear  of  direct  or  indirect  pressure  on  a  voter  to  influence 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  55 

him  in  casting  his  ballot.  It  may  take  the  form  of  brute 
force  or  violence,  or  threat  to  use  such  force  or  violence, 
or,  as  is  at  present  more  usual,  of  open  or  veiled  threat  of 
pecuniary,  social,  or  spiritual  injury.  The  difficulty  of 
reaching  this  form  of  corruption  through  legislation  is  at 
once  apparent.  The  employer  through  a  casual  hint  or 
conversation  gives  his  employees  to  understand  what  will 
happen  or  not  happen  if  the  election  goes  a  certain  way ; 
sample  ballots  marked  to  indicate  the  candidates  favored 
by  the  employer  are  distributed  among  the  employees ;  12° 
employees  are  sent  out  on  the  employer's  time  to  work 
with  other  employees;  false  reports  are  circulated  as  to 
the  attitude  of  candidates  on  certain  questions,  such  as 
the  labor  question  or  the  church;  candidates  of  only  a 
certain  party  are  permitted  to  address  the  workers  in 
shops  or  factories;  or  "advice"  is  enclosed  in  pay  en- 
velopes. 

The  incident  of  a  Mormon  apostle  influencing  the 
Mormon  voters  in  early  Iowa  is  a  good  example  of  an 
attempt  to  exert  religious  influence  in  politics.121 

In  Iowa  instances  of  the  intimidation  of  railroad  em- 
ployees are,  perhaps,  more  numerous  than  those  of  any 
other  class  of  workers.  This  is  perhaps  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  railroads  are  the  largest  and  most  completely 
organized  interest  in  the  State.  Conversations  with  rail- 
road employees  usually  bring  out  the  fact  that  the  author- 
ities have  been  in  the  habit  of  "advising"  their  employees 
as  to  whom  they  should  vote  for,  in  spite  of  legislation 
forbidding  such  activity.  Legislation  against  undue  in- 
fluence, therefore,  has  for  its  object  the  elimination  of 
such  conditions,  for  the  purpose  of  leaving  the  voter  free 
to  express  at  the  polls  his  unbiased  opinion  on  political 
affairs. 


56  APPLIED  HISTORY 

According  to  the  Michigan  Territorial  legislation  of 
1820  a  person  convicted  of  using  threats  or  "other  cor- 
rupt means  or  device  whatsoever",  direct  or  indirect,  in 
attempting  to  influence  an  elector  in  voting  or  refraining 
from  voting  might  be  fined  not  to  exceed  $1,000.122  Again, 
an  act  of  1827  provided  that  any  person  who  by  menace, 
directly  or  indirectly,  attempted  to  keep  an  elector  from 
casting  his  ballot  might  be  fined  not  more  than  $200  for 
each  offense;  while  deceiving  an  elector  regarding  the 
contents  of  his  ballots  was  made  punishable  by  a  fine  not 
exceeding  $100. 123 

The  Iowa  corrupt  practices  legislation  of  1849  pro- 
vided that  any  person  who  used  any  threat  to  get  a  voter 
to  cast  his  ballot  contrary  to  his  wishes,  or  to  deter  him 
from  voting,  purposely  deceived  an  illiterate  voter  re- 
garding the  contents  of  his  ballot,  or  changed  an  elec- 
tor 's  ballot  so  that  he  voted  contrary  to  his  wishes,  might 
be  fined  from  $100  to  $1,000  and  be  imprisoned  in  the 
county  jail  from  one  to  six  months.124  These  provisions, 
however,  were  repealed  by  the  Code  of  1851,  which  de- 
fines as  undue  influence  procuring  or  endeavoring  to 
procure  the  vote  of  any  elector,  or  the  influence  of  any 
person  over  other  electors  at  any  election  for  himself,  or 
for  or  against  any  candidate,  by  means  of  violence, 
threats  of  violence,  or  threats  of  withdrawing  custom  or 
dealing  in  business  or  trade,  or  enforcing  the  payment  of 
debts,  or  bringing  any  civil  or  criminal  action,  or  any 
other  threat  of  injury  to  be  inflicted  by  him  or  by  his 
means.  Violation  of  this  section  of  the  Code  was  punish- 
able by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $500  or  a  jail  sentence  not 
to  exceed  one  year.  The  Code  of  1851  further  provides 
that  preventing  or  attempting  to  prevent  a  voter  from 
casting  his  ballot  by  force  or  threat  of  force  may  be  pun- 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  57 

islied  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $200  and  a  jail  sentence 
of  not  to  exceed  six  months.  Deceiving  an  illiterate  voter 
concerning  the  contents  of  his  ballot  or  changing  it  so  the 
voter's  ballot  is  cast  contrary  to  his  wishes  was  penalized 
by  a  fine  of  from  $100  to  $1,000  and  a  jail  sentence  of  not 
exceeding  two  years.125 

While  Iowa  has  been  comparatively  free  from  the 
violence  which  has  too  often  characterized  elections  in 
some  of  the  large  cities  of  the  country,  elections  in  this 
State  have  not  at  all  places  and  at  all  times  been  peaceful 
gatherings  of  electors  to  express  their  political  opinions, 
free  from  outside  pressure.  Even  at  present  one  some- 
times reads  of  disturbances  in  connection  with  elections 
held  in  Iowa.  Concerning  the  Des  Moines  primary  elec- 
tion to  select  candidates  for  the  final  election  of  municipal 
officers  in  the  spring  of  1912  the  Register  and  Leader  says 
that  "voters  had  objection  to  the  loafers  and  tough  ele- 
ment which  hung  around  the  polling  places  last  Monday. 
Several  persons  who  called  at  the  city  hall  stated  that 
they  had  turned  away  without  voting  last  Monday  owing 
to  the  gang  of  hangers-on  around  the  polls."120 

It  was  to  prevent  this  form  of  intimidation  that  an  act 
was  passed  in  1886  containing  a  provision  which  made  it 
illegal  at  a  municipal  election  to  loaf  within  one  hundred 
feet  of  the  polls,  hinder  or  delay  a  voter  in  going  to  or 
from  the  polling  place,  or  solicit  or  attempt  in  any  way 
to  influence  a  voter  in  casting  his  ballot.  The  penalty  for 
the  violation  of  this  statute  was  a  fine  of  from  $50  to  $200 
or  a  jail  sentence  of  from  twenty  days  to  six  months,  or 
both.  It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  election  judges  to 
prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  the  violation  of  these  pro- 
visions by  posting  notices  within  one  hundred  feet  of  the 
polls  in  conspicuous  places  "and  in  other  ways",  and  to 
cause  the  arrest  of  offenders.127 


58  APPLIED  HISTORY 

A  general  election  law  passed  in  1892,  applying  to  all 
except  school  elections,  restated  the  above  as  election  of- 
fenses, though  in  some  cases  with  slight  changes  or  omis- 
sions, and  added  some  other  acts  of  a  similar  nature. 
The  provisions  of  the  statute  in  some  respects  are  not 
very  clear  and  seem  somewhat  conflicting.  Electioneer- 
ing or  the  soliciting  of  votes  within  one  hundred  feet  of 
the  polls,  interrupting,  hindering,  or  opposing  a  voter 
while  approaching  the  polls,  might  be  punished  by  a  fine 
of  from  $25  to  $100,  or  a  jail  sentence  of  from  ten  to 
thirty  days  for  each  offense,  or  both.  Moreover,  any  one 
interfering  or  attempting  to  interfere  with  a  voter  when 
inside  the  polling  place  or  when  marking  his  ballot,  or 
trying  to  get  the  voter  to  show  how  he  intended  to  mark 
or  had  marked  his  ballot,  might  be  fined  from  $5  to  $100 
or  imprisoned  for  a  term  of  from  ten  to  thirty  days,  or 
both.  It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  election  judges  to 
enforce  these  provisions.  The  act  finally  adds  the  gen- 
eral provision  that  willfully  hindering  the  voting  of 
others  may  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  from  $10  to  $100  or 
a  jail  sentence  of  from  ten  to  thirty  days,  or  both.128 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  as  found  in  the 
Code  of  1897  covering  this  form  of  intimidation  of  voters 
include  the  provisions  of  the  Code  of  1851,  except  that 
the  provision  against  deceiving  an  illiterate  voter  as  to 
the  contents  of  his  ballot  is  directed  only  against  election 
officials,  and  the  provisions  of  the  general  election  law  of 
1892,  except  for  the  omission  of  the  general  prohibition 
of  the  hindering  of  voters.  It  stipulates  that  the  viola- 
tion of  the  provisions  taken  from  the  general  election  law 
of  1892  may  be  punished  by  a  fine  of  from  $5  to  $100  or 
a  jail  sentence  of  from  ten  to  thirty  days,  or  both.  The 
provision  which  made  it  obligatory  for  the  election  judges 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  59 

to  enforce  the  law  on  this  point  is  also  omitted.  More- 
over, the  Code  of  1897  forbids  loitering  or  congregating 
at  or  within  one  hundred  feet  of  the  polling  place,  but 
provides  no  penalty  for  the  enforcement  of  this  clause.129 
However,  the  Code  of  1897  provides  that  "when  the  per- 
formance of  any  act  is  prohibited  by  any  statute  and  no- 
penalty  for  the  violation  of  such  act  is  imposed,  the  doing 
of  such  act  is  a  misdemeanor"  (Code  of  1897,  p.  1934). 

The  object  of  employing  personal  workers  at  elections 
is  two-fold.  In  the  first  place  the  personal  worker  is 
supposed  to  be  able  to  swing  from  five  to  fifteen  votes, 
for  the  candidate  or  party  for  which  he  is  working.130 
Again,  the  employment  of  personal  workers  may  be  used 
indirectly  as  a  cloak  for  buying  the  worker's  vote.  Iowa 
legislation  directed  against  the  employment  of  such  paid 
personal  workers  dates  from  the  year  1894,  when  an  act 
was  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  making  the  hiring 
of  workers  on  election  day  a  misdemeanor  and  provides 
that  both  the  giver  and  receiver  of  money  or  other  thing 
of  value  for  this  purpose  may  be  fined  from  $50  to  $300, 
or  sentenced  to  jail  for  a  term  not  to  exceed  ninety  days. 
The  act  makes  an  exception,  however,  in  the  case  of  con- 
tracts made  by  individuals  or  political  committees  for  the 
conveyance  of  voters  to  and  from  the  polling  place  for 
reasonable  pay.131  Earlier  legislation,  however,  permits 
each  political  party  to  employ  three  poll  watchers.132 

A  primary  election  law  of  1904  prohibited  the  em- 
ployment of  paid  personal  workers  in  a  primary.  This 
law  provided  as  punishment,  for  any  person  who  agreed 
to  "perform  any  service  in  the  interest  of  any  candidate" 
for  money  or  other  valuable  thing  or  accepted  pay  for 
work  performed,  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $300  or  a  jail 
sentence  not  to  exceed  thirty  days.     The  law  exempted 


'60  APPLIED  HISTORY 

contracts  for  the  conveyance  of  voters  to  and  from  the 
polls133 — a  provision  that  was  repealed  by  the  primary 
law  of  1907.  According  to  the  1907  act  the  giving,  offer- 
ing, or  receiving  of  money  or  other  valuable  thing  for 
political  work  in  a  primary  is  penalized  by  a  fine  of  not 
more  than  $300  or  imprisonment  not  to  exceed  ninety 
days;  but  the  act  permits  contracts  for  political  adver- 
tisements and  for  securing  signatures  to  nominating 
petitions  at  a  reasonable  remuneration.134  The  act 
passed  during  the  same  session  providing  for  the  com- 
mission plan  of  government  makes  it  illegal  for  any 
person  to  agree  to  perform  any  services  for  a  candidate 
for  a  municipal  office.  Violation  of  this  provision  is  pun- 
ished by  a  fine  not  to  exceed  $300  or  a  jail  sentence  of  not 
more  than  thirty  days.135 

The  Spoils  System  is  based  partly  on  a  theory  of  the 
political  activity  of  the  officeholder  as  a  return  for  his 
appointment;  and  so,  corrupt  practices  acts  have  con- 
tained provisions  for  the  elimination  of  such  activities. 
The  importance  of  legislation  directed  against  the  polit- 
ical influence  of  officeholders  is  admirably  brought  out  by 
President  Cleveland  in  his  instructions  to  cabinet  mem- 
bers which  read  as  follows : 

Officeholders  are  the  agents  of  the  people,  not  their  masters. 
Not  only  is  their  time  and  labor  due  to  the  Government,  but  they 
should  scrupulously  avoid,  in  their  political  action,  as  well  as  in 
the  discharge  of  their  official  duty,  offending,  by  display  of  ob- 
structive partisanship,  their  neighbors  who  have  relations  with 
them  as  public  officials. 

They  should  also  constantly  remember  that  their  party 
friends,  from  whom  they  have  received  preferment,  have  not 
invested  them  with  the  power  of  arbitrarily  managing  their  po- 
litical affairs.    They  have  no  right  as  officeholders  to  dictate  the 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  61 

political  action  of  their  party  associates  or  to  throttle  freedom 
of  action  within  party  lines  by  methods  and  practices  which  per- 
vert every  useful  and  justifiable  purpose  of  party  organiza- 
tion.130 

To  prevent  political  activity  on  the  part  of  public  of- 
ficials and  employees  the  act  creating  the  Board  of 
Control  of  State  Institutions  prohibits  the  use  of  political 
influence  by  members  of  the  Board  or  any  officer  or  em- 
ployee of  any  institution  under  the  control  of  the  Board. 
Any  such  person  who  by  soliciting  or  otherwise  uses  his 
position  directly  or  indirectly  to  influence  the  political 
views  of  other  officers  or  employees  connected  with  such 
institutions  may  be  removed  from  office  by  the  proper 
authority.137  With  the  same  object  in  view  the  act  pro- 
viding for  commission  government  in  Iowa  makes  it  a 
misdemeanor  for  any  officer  or  employee  of  the  city  to 
solicit  or  otherwise  exert  his  influence,  directly  or  in- 
directly, to  affect  the  political  views  of  other  officials  or 
employees  or  to  secure  their  votes  for  a  particular  person 
or  candidate.  Violation  of  this  act  may  be  punished  by  a 
fine  of  not  to  exceed  $300  or  a  jail  sentence  of  not  to  ex- 
ceed thirty  days.138 

Perhaps  the  most  demoralizing  phase  of  corrupt  prac- 
tices in  Iowa  elections  has  been  the  control  or  attempted 
control  on  the  part  of  employers  of  the  votes  of  their 
employees.  Employers  have,  at  least  in  the  past,  realized 
more  fully  than  employees  the  value  of  a  vote  in  a  system 
of  government  like  ours.  Some  employers  seem  to  act  on 
the  assumption  that  the  giving  of  employment  carries 
with  it  the  right  to  control  the  employee's  vote.  That 
employers  are  in  a  position  to  use  such  influence  with 
employees,  and  have  often  done  so,  few  will  question. 


»62  APPLIED  HISTORY 

The  activity  of  the  railroads  in  this  respect  has  been 
especially  notorious  in  Iowa.  For  example,  in  1910  the 
railroads  used  influence  with  their  employees  to  defeat 
a  certain  candidate  for  the  office  of  railroad  commission- 
er. And  at  the  same  election  the  saloon  interests  were 
accused  of  opposing  in  the  same  way  the  election  of  the 
Eepublican  candidate  for  Attorney  General.139 

In  an  attempt,  therefore,  to  remove  influences  affect- 
ing employees  in  exercising  their  right  of  franchise,  the 
Iowa  legislature  included  in  the  general  election  law  of 
1892  certain  restrictions  on  employers.140  To  prevent 
employers  from  intimidating  their  employees  by  granting 
those  who  vote  "right"  time  to  vote,  while  refusing  those 
suspected  of  voting  "wrong"  the  necessary  time  for 
voting,  this  statute  compels  employers  to  give  their  em- 
ployees two  hours'  time  for  voting  without  penalty  of 
any  kind.  The  law,  however,  requires  employees  prior 
to  election  day  to  notify  their  employer,  who  may  then 
fix  the  time.  An  employer  who  refuses  to  grant  his 
employees  time  to  vote,  penalizes  them  for  taking  time  off 
for  voting,  attempts  to  influence  or  control  the  voter  in 
casting  his  ballot  by  offering  a  reward,  threatens  to  dis- 
charge the  employee,  or  in  any  other  way  tries  to  intim- 
idate the  employee,  or  directly  or  indirectly  violates  the 
provisions  of  the  act  in  any  manner  may  be  fined  from 
$5  to  $100.141  It  seems  to  be  true,  however,  that  the  pen- 
alty provided  has  not  noticeably  deterred  the  more 
powerful  employers  from  attempting  to  influence  their 
employees  at  elections. 

TREATING 

As  a  rule  the  purpose  of  treating  is  not  to  buy  the 
votes  of  members   of  opposing  parties,  but  rather  to 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  63 

"enthuse"  and  confirm  the  members  of  one's  own  party. 
In  a  primary  campaign,  however,  the  appeal  being  pri- 
marily to  the  party  members  by  candidates  for  the  party 
nomination,  there  is  little  difference  between  treating  and 
bribery,  except  in  the  name.  To  give  the  voters  the  im- 
pression that  he  is  a  "good  fellow"  the  candidate  hands 
out  his  notorious  campaign  cigars  or  treats  the  pros- 
pective voter  to  drinks  —  at  least  these  are  the  usual 
forms  of  treating  in  an  Iowa  campaign.  The  effective- 
ness of  this  sort  of  an  argument  with  a  certain  class  of 
voters  can  hardly  be  questioned. 

As  early  as  1827  the  Michigan  Legislative  Council 
provided  that  any  person  who  directly  or  indirectly  gave 
or  promised  any  meat,  drink,  or  "other  reward"  with  the 
intent  of  securing  his  own  election  or  that  of  a  favorite 
candidate  might  be  fined  a  sum  not  to  exceed  $500  for 
every  offense.142  It  was  not,  however,  till  1880  that  Iowa 
legislated  directly  against  treating.  Treating  by  means 
of  liquor  and  cigars  has  been,  and  in  some  communities 
still  is,  one  of  the  most  corrupting  influences  in  connec- 
tion with  elections.  Too  often  candidates  have  been 
elected  to  office  for  no  other  reason  than  that  they  are 
"good  spenders"  in  the  campaign.  The  Iowa  statute  of 
1880  made  it  a  misdemeanor  to  give  or  offer  intoxicating 
liquor,  including  ale,  wine,  or  beer,  to  a  voter  at  or  within 
one  mile  of  the  polls  on  election  day  before  the  time  of 
closing  the  polls.  On  conviction  the  offender  was  liable 
to  a  fine  of  from  $5  to  $100,  or  a  jail  sentence  of  not  to  ex- 
ceed thirty  days,  or  both.143  Moreover,  the  act  of  1907 
providing  for  the  publicity  of  campaign  funds  contains  a 
section  making  it  the  duty  of  election  officials  at  munic- 
ipal, primary,  and  general  elections  to  prohibit  the 
placing  of,  keeping,  or  giving  to  voters,  cigars,  food,  or 


64  APPLIED  HISTORY 

other  refreshments  or  treats  in  or  about  the  polling  place. 
Violation  is  punishable  by  a  fine  of  from  $50  to  $300,  or 
imprisonment  of  from  thirty  days  to  six  months.144 

ILLEGAL  VOTING 

Illegal  voting  means  the  casting  of  a  ballot  by  a  per- 
son who  for  some  reason  or  another  is  not  by  law  entitled 
to  the  privilege.  This  is  an  offense  not  easily  reached  by 
legislation,  since  intent  is  usually  held  to  be  the  important 
consideration  by  the  courts  when  passing  on  such  cases. 
"Repeating"  and  "colonizing"  are  the  principal  forms 
of  illegal  voting. 

The  general  election  law  enacted  by  the  Legislative 
Assembly  in  1839  contained  a  section  making  illegal  vot- 
ing punishable  by  a  fine  of  from  $25  to  $50.  Moreover,  if 
the  election  judges  considered  the  person  casting  the 
ballot  a  legal  voter  he  could  not  later  be  accused  of  il- 
legal voting.  Repeating  was  punishable  by  a  fine  of 
$100.145  By  the  legislation  of  1849  the  following  acts 
were  declared  illegal:  (1)  repeating;  (2)  voting  by  a 
person  who  knew  he  did  not  possess  the  required  quali- 
fications; (3)  advising,  assisting,  or  inducing  another  to 
vote  twice  at  the  same  election,  or  to  vote  when  he  knew 
such  person  not  to  be  a  qualified  voter.  Violation  of 
these  provisions  was  punishable  by  a  fine  of  from  $100  to 
$1,000,  or  a  jail  sentence  of  from  one  to  six  months.140 

The  provisions  of  the  Code  of  1851,  which  still  con- 
stitute the  law  regarding  offenses  of  this  character, 
changed  the  penalty  (1)  for  counselling  a  person  to  vote, 
when  knowing  such  person  to  be  unqualified,  to  a  fine  of 
from  $50  to  $500  and  a  jail  sentence  of  not  to  exceed  one 
year,  (2)  for  repeating,  a  fine  not  to  exceed  $200  or  a  jail 
sentence  of  not  more  than  one  year,  and  (3)  for  voting 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  65 

when  knowing  oneself  to  be  unqualified,  a  similar  fine  of 
$200  or  imprisonment  for  a  term  not  to  exceed  six 
months.147  Under  the  latter  provision  it  has  been  held 
that  the  State  may  prove  disability  without  stating  in  the 
indictment  what  the  disability  is.  The  essential  point  is 
that  the  person  voting  knows  himself  to  be  disqualified.148 

The  Code  of  1851  provided  further  that  voting  in  a 
county  of  which  one  is  not  a  resident  may  be  punished  by 
a  fine  not  to  exceed  $200,  or  a  jail  sentence  of  not  more 
than  one  year.  It  stated  that  a  person  who  votes,  being 
disqualified  by  reason  of  non-residence,  nonage,  not  being 
a  United  States  citizen,  or  on  account  of  some  other  dis- 
ability, may  be  fined  not  more  than  $300,  or  imprisoned 
in  the  county  jail  for  a  term  of  not  more  than  one  year. 

It  is  no  defense  on  the  part  of  a  person  accused  of 
illegal  voting  to  show  that  he  voted  on  the  advice  of  other 
voters  who  were  not  learned  in  the  law.149  The  court 
argued  that  if  such  a  rule  were  permitted  the  purity  of 
the  ballot  could  not  be  maintained,  since  evasion  of  the 
law  would  be  possible  for  any  one.  It  is  the  duty  of 
citizens  who  are  ignorant  of  the  qualifications  of  voters 
to  inform  themselves  by  looking  up  the  law  or  seeking 
the  advice  of  persons  qualified  to  give  the  needed  infor- 
mation. Voting  outside  of  the  township  of  which  one  is 
a  resident  is  also  an  offense  against  this  section;150  for 
residence  is  not  merely  a  question  of  fact  but  intent  as 
well.  Living  in  a  township  the  required  time  would  not 
make  one  a  resident  if  such  person  were  there  merely  for 
temporary  purposes  and  did  not  intend  to  make  that 
place  his  home.  Voting  outside  of  the  precinct  in  which 
a  person  has  his  residence  may  not  necessarily  be  suf- 
ficient evidence  to  convict  him  of  illegal  voting;  for,  if 
the  person  so  voting  believes  himself  to  be  a  legal  voter 


66  APPLIED  HISTORY 

of  another  precinct  and  has  consulted  legal  advisers,  he  is 
not  considered  guilty  of  illegal  voting.151 

The  Code  further  provides  that  a  judge  who  illegally 
permits  a  person,  challenged  by  an  elector  as  being  un- 
qualified, to  vote  without  requiring  proof,  or  refuses  the 
ballot  to  one  complying  with  the  requirements  of  the  law, 
may  be  fined  from  $20  to  $200  or  sentenced  to  jail  not  to 
exceed  six  months. 

The  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  to  render  an  election 
officer  liable  for  refusing  the  ballot  of  a  voter  it  must 
appear  not  only  that  the  voter  was  qualified  to  vote,  but 
also  that  the  ballot  was  offered  to  the  officer  who  refused 
to  receive  it  during  the  time  when  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
officer  to  receive  votes  (State  vs.  Clark,  102  Iowa  685). 

The  origin  of  State  regulation  of  primary  elections  in 
Iowa  may  be  traced  to  the  legislation  of  1898.  In  order 
to  exclude  from  the  party  primary  persons  who  are  not 
members  of  the  party  a  law  was  enacted  which  provides 
that  at  any  party  primary  to  nominate  candidates  or  to 
choose  delegates  to  party  convention,  it  is  illegal  for  a 
person  who  is  not  at  the  time  of  the  primary  a  bona  fide 
member  of  the  party  to  participate.  Nor  may  persons 
who  are  not  qualified  voters  take  part  in  such  primary. 
To  violate  this  section,  or  to  knowingly  procure,  aid,  or 
abet  such  violation,  is  made  a  misdemeanor.  The  penalty 
in  either  case  is  a  fine  not  to  exceed  $100  or  a  jail  sentence 
of  not  more  than  thirty  days.  Moreover,  it  is  considered 
prima  facie  evidence  of  violation  of  the  act  for  any  person 
who  has  taken  part  in  one  party  primary  to  vote  in  the 
primary  of  another  party  at  the  same  election.  The 
election  judges  are  given  the  power  to  administer  oaths 
and  to  examine  any  person  offering  to  vote  regarding  his 
right  to  take  part  in  the  primary:  it  is  made  their  duty 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  67 

to  do  so  if  a  challenged  person  desires  to  vote.  Persons 
testifying  falsely  regarding  any  material  matter  affect- 
ing Ms  right  to  vote  are  held  guilty  of  perjury.152 

The  primary  election  law  of  1904,  which  made  the 
holding  of  party  primaries  obligatory  in  counties  having 
a  population  of  75,000  or  more,  declares  as  illegal,  will- 
fully voting  or  offering  to  vote  without  the  residence 
qualifications,  the  age  qualification,  United  States  citizen- 
ship, or  knowing  oneself  not  to  be  a  qualified  voter  of  the 
precinct  where  one  attempts  to  vote.  Voting  under  these 
circumstances  constitutes  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by 
a  fine  of  from  $100  to  $500  and  imprisonment  for  from  ten 
to  ninety  days.  Knowingly  procuring,  aiding,  or  abet- 
ting the  violation  of  these  provisions  are  penalized  in  the 
same  manner.153 

The  act  of  1907  providing  for  State-wide  primaries 
has  the  same  provisions  regarding  illegal  voting,  but  the 
penalty  for  violation  is  changed  to  a  jail  sentence  of  from 
thirty  days  to  six  months  or  a  fine  of  from  $100  to  $500. 154 
The  act  providing  for  the  adoption  of  commission  gov- 
ernment in  certain  municipalities  contains  the  same  def- 
inition of  illegal  voting,  but  provides  as  penalty  a  jail 
sentence  of  from  ten  to  ninety  days  with  a  fine  of  the 
same  amount  as  provided  in  the  primary  act  of  1907.155 

BETTING  ON  ELECTION  EESULTS 

The  purpose  of  betting,  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  sub- 
ject of  corrupt  practices,  is  to  indicate  to  the  party 
members  a  confidence  in  the  outcome  of  the  election,  to 
bring  the  wavering  voters  who  desire  to  be  on  the  win- 
ning side  to  the  support  of  their  ticket,  and  to  discourage 
the  members  of  the  opposing  party.  Betting  is  also  re- 
sorted to  as  a  means  of  concealing  bribery. 


68  APPLIED  HISTORY 

The  Iowa  law  provides  that ' '  any  person  who  records 
or  registers  bets  or  wagers  or  sells  pools  ....  npon 
the  result  of  any  political  nomination  or  election  .... 
shall  be  fined  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dollars,  or  im- 
prisoned in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  one  year,  or 
both."15'5  According  to  an  interpretation  of  this  section, 
issuing  from  the  office  of  the  Attorney  General,  "the 
making  of  any  bet  or  wager  on  the  result  of  any  election 
or  on  the  success  or  failure  of  any  candidate  for  any 
office,  is  a  crime  under  our  laws."157  The  Marshalltown 
Times-Republican  in  commenting  upon  this  interpreta- 
tion declares  that  "a  year  in  the  county  jail  for  wagering 
a  cigar  on  whether  John  Doe  would  beat  Richard  Roe  for 
township  constable,  would  be  paying  dearly  for  the 
smoke,  but  such  penalty  could  be  paid  under  the  Iowa 
law",  according  to  the  ruling  from  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral's office. 15S 

RESTRICTIONS   ON   CAMPAIGN   CONTRIBUTIONS 

In  a  political  campaign  money  is  needed  for  a  number 
of  purposes.  Of  these,  perhaps  the  principal  legal  ex- 
penditures are  for  the  maintenance  of  the  party  head- 
quarters; hiring  of  halls;  paying  of  speakers  and  po- 
litical "workers"  of  various  kinds ;  conveyance  of  voters ; 
making  up  and  distributing  political  literature;  adver- 
tising through  newspapers,  bulletin  boards,  motion  pic- 
ture shows,  and  the  like;  distributing  banners,  buttons, 
flags,  and  campaign  emblems;  and  incidentals  such  as 
postage,  messenger  fees,  telephone,  and  telegrams. 
Moreover,  services  rendered  during  the  campaign  are 
usually  paid  for  at  an  exorbitant  rate.  In  the  past  a 
large  share  of  the  money  collected  has  been  appropriated 
by  the  agents  handling  the  funds.    Illegal  purposes,  such 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  69 

as  the  purchase  of  votes  and  treating,  greatly  increase 
the  sum  used  in  conducting  a  campaign. 

It  was  Henry  Watterson  who  said  that  in  a  campaign 
money  counts  more  than  principles.  Harriman  estimated 
that  the  fund  of  $240,000  raised  by  him  for  the  1904  New 
York  campaign  turned  50,000  voters  in  New  York  City 
alone  and  made  a  difference  of  100,000  in  the  general 
result.  Money  being  so  essential,  parties  are  obliged  to 
solicit  large  funds.  Moreover,  a  large  campaign  con- 
tribution seems  to  imply  that  the  party  receiving  it  is 
placed  in  a  position  of  debtor  to  the  contributor  and  is 
expected  to  return  the  favor  if  it  gets  into  power. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  business  affected  by  some 
form  of  State  regulation  or  desiring  special  favors  from 
the  government  endeavors  to  call  to  its  aid  the  influence 
of  parties  through  campaign  contributions.  This  idea 
was  well  expressed  by  Jay  Gould  when,  in  describing  the 
political  activity  of  the  Erie  Railroad,  he  said  that  in  a 
Republican  district  his  corporation  contributed  to  the 
Republican  campaign  fund  and  in  a  Democratic  district 
to  the  Democratic  campaign  fund,  while  in  a  close  district 
contributions  were  made  to  the  funds  of  both  parties  — 
always  for  the  Erie  Railroad.  A  primary  motive  then  in 
prohibiting  campaign  contributions  from  certain  sources 
is  to  eliminate  selfish  interests  that  contribute  to  party 
funds  as  a  matter  of  business  in  order  to  be  in  a  position 
to  secure  legislation  in  their  favor  or  to  ward  off  legis- 
lation or  the  enforcement  of  laws  which  might  be  in- 
jurious to  their  enterprises. 

To  eliminate  this  influence  in  Iowa  politics  legislation 
was  enacted  in  1907  which  makes  it  "unlawful  for  any 
corporation  doing  business  within  the  State,  or  any  of- 
ficer, agent  or  representative  thereof  acting  for   such 


70  APPLIED  HISTORY 

corporation,  to  give  or  contribute  any  money,  property, 
labor  or  thing  of  value,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  any 
member  of  any  political  committee,  political  party,  or 
employe  or  representative  thereof,  or  to  any  candidate 
for  any  public  office  or  candidate  for  nomination  to  any 
public  office  or  to  the  representative  of  such  candidate, 
for  campaign  expenses  or  for  any  political  purpose  what- 
soever, or  to  any  person,  partnership  or  corporation  for 
the  purpose  of  influencing  or  causing  such  person,  part- 
nership or  corporation  to  influence  any  elector  of  the 
state  to  vote  for  or  against  any  candidate  for  public  office 
or  for  nomination  for  public  office  or  to  any  public  officer 
for  the  purpose  of  influencing  his  official  action".  This 
act  is  not  to  be  interpreted,  however,  so  as  to  check  in 
any  way  the  freedom  of  the  press  in  discussing  candi- 
dates, nominations,  public  officers,  or  political  questions. 

The  act  of  1907  also  makes  it  illegal  for  a  member  of 
a  political  committee,  political  party,  or  an  employee  or 
representative  of  a  political  party  or  committee,  or  a 
candidate  or  his  agent  to  solicit,  request,  or  knowingly 
receive  from  a  corporation  or  its  representative  or  of- 
ficers any  money,  property,  or  thing  of  value  for  any 
political  purpose.  Testifying  in  a  case  arising  under  the 
law  is  compulsory,  but  immunity  is  granted  the  person 
testifying  except  in  the  commission  of  perjury  in  con- 
nection with  the  giving  of  his  testimony.  Conviction  of 
a  violation  of  the  act  carries  with  it  imprisonment  of 
from  six  months  to  one  year  and,  in  the  discretion  of  the 
court,  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $1,000. 15t) 

Iowa  legislation  restricting  campaign  contributions  is 
not  confined  to  prohibitions  on  corporation  contributions. 
A  beginning  has  been  made  in  the  direction  of  restricting 
party  assessments  of  public  officers  and  employees.    As- 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  71 

sessments  are  levied  on  officeholders  on  the  theory  that 
they  owe  their  position  to  the  party  rather  than  to  the 
people,  and  that  they  ought  to  contribute  to  the  support 
of  the  patriots  who  helped  put  them  into  their  positions 
but  who  themselves  belong  to  the  unofficial  side  of  the 
party.  The  party  assessment  differs  little  from  a  prop- 
erty qualification  for  officeholding,  is  an  incentive  to 
dishonesty,  and  tends  to  keep  good  men  out  of  the  public 
service.  To  be  sure,  the  payment  of  such  assessments 
is  not  compulsory,  but  the  officeholder  or  employee  knows 
very  well  that  a  refusal  to  pay  is  likely  to  be  punished  by 
dismissal  or  some  other  mark  of  disfavor. 

To  prevent  the  assessment  of  officials  or  employees 
connected  with  State  institutions  controlled  by  the  Board 
of  Control,  the  act  creating  the  Board  provides  that  any 
member  or  officer  of  the  Board  of  Control,  or  any  officer 
or  employee  of  any  institution  subject  to  the  Board,  who 
in  any  manner  contributes  money  or  other  thing  of  value 
to  any  person  for  election  purposes  may  be  removed  by 
the  proper  authorities.10"  A  later  law  provides  that  any 
officer  or  employee  of  a  commission  governed  city  who  in 
any  manner  contributes  money,  labor,  or  other  valuable 
thing  to  any  person  for  election  purposes  is  considered 
as  having  committed  a  misdemeanor  and  may  be  fined  not 
to  exceed  $300  or  imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  for  not 
more  than  thirty  days.161  An  amendment  to  this  act  de- 
clares it  to  be  a  misdemeanor  for  a  member  of  the  fire  or 
police  department  in  such  cities  to  make  any  direct  or 
indirect  contributions  of  money  or  other  valuable  thing 
to  a  candidate  for  nomination  or  election  or  to  a  cam- 
paign or  political  committee.  Violation  of  the  statute  is 
punishable  by  a  fine  of  from  $25  to  $100  or  imprisonment 
for  not  to  exceed  thirty  days.102 


72  APPLIED  HISTORY 

PUBLICITY  OF  CAMPAIGN   FUNDS 

It  is  not  so  much  the  campaign  contribution  itself  that 
has  fallen  into  disrepute  as  the  secrecy  involving-  such 
contributions  and  the  belief  that  large  contributions  from 
corporations  have  been  repaid  corruptly  by  the  granting 
of  special  favors  through  the  government.  Publicity  of 
campaign  contributions  and  expenditures  has  been  advo- 
cated in  recent  years  as  a  cure  for  political  corruption. 
This  idea  is  based  on  the  theory  that  corrupt  bargains 
will  not  be  entered  into  where  publicity  is  required,  or  if 
entered  into  such  bargains  can  not  be  kept  in  the  face  of 
a  dissenting  public  opinion.  No  party  or  candidate  would 
dare  to  show  an  expenditure  for  the  illegal  influence  of 
voters ;  nor  will  an  individual  or  corporation  that  expects 
a  return  for  the  contribution  care  to  contribute  if  un- 
certain of  the  party's  power  to  fulfil  the  understanding. 

It  was  in  view  of  these  considerations  that  the  Iowa 
legislature  in  1907  passed  an  act  requiring  the  publicity 
of  campaign  contributions  and  expenditures.103  The  act 
applies  to  all  elections  except  school  elections.  Within 
sixty  days  after  a  primary  or  an  election  the  candidate  is 
required  to  file  a  sworn  itemized  statement  of  contribu- 
tions and  expenditures  accounting  for  all  money  or  other 
things  of  value  expended  or  promised  directly  or  indirect- 
ly by  him  and,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  by  others  in 
his  behalf  to  aid  or  secure  his  nomination  or  election. 
If  he  is  a  candidate  for  a  municipal  or  county  office  the 
statement  must  be  filed  with  the  county  auditor.  If  he  is 
a  candidate  for  an  office  voted  on  in  more  than  one  county, 
the  statement  should  be  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State. 
Blanks  for  this  purpose  are  furnished  by  the  State.  The 
statement  must  show  when  the  contribution  was  received, 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  73 

the  amount  thereof,  and  the  source.  It  must  also  indicate 
the  date,  purpose,  amount,  and  to  whom  payments  are 
made.  The  statements  must  also  include  the  assessments 
of  any  persons,  committees,  or  organizations  in  charge  of 
the  candidate's  campaign. 

Statements  are  also  required  from  the  committee 
•chairman  of  the  State,  district,  or  county,  filed  at  the 
same  time  and  place,  giving  similar  information  and 
stating  in  addition  the  amounts  or  balances  remaining  on 
hand.  The  person  filing  the  statement  is  required  to 
make  a  sworn  statement  as  to  the  accuracy  and  truth  of 
the  statement.  These  statements  are  open  to  public  in- 
spection at  all  times,  and  they  remain  on  file  as  a  part  of 
the  permanent  records  in  the  office  where  filed.  In  cases 
arising  under  this  law  witnesses  may  not  be  excused  on 
the  ground  that  they  may  incriminate  themselves  or  as  a 
result  of  their  testimony  become  exposed  to  public  ig- 
nominy, but  they  are  immune  from  prosecution  for  any- 
thing brought  out  in  the  trial.  Failing  to  comply  with  the 
law  is  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  a  fine  of  from  $50  to 
$300,  or  a  jail  sentence  of  from  thirty  days  to  six  months. 


Ill 

A    COMPARATIVE    STUDY    OF    CORRUPT 
PRACTICES  LEGISLATION 

When  in  recent  years  the  American  commonwealths 
came  to  realize  the  need  of  more  stringent  corrupt  prac- 
tices legislation,  the  reformers  instinctively  turned  to  the 
statutes  of  Great  Britain  for  guidance.  In  England,  as  a 
result  of  popular  agitation  against  corruption  connected 
with  the  elections  as  well  as  a  feeling  on  the  part  of  the 
political  organizations  that  the  financing  of  elections  was 
becoming  too  burdensome,  the  Parliament  passed  a  com- 
prehensive corrupt  practices  act  as  early  as  1883.  More- 
over, this  act,  supplemented  by  the  legislation  of  1895,  is 
so  complete  and  apparently  so  satisfactory  that  it  still 
serves  as  a  model  for  American  legislation  directed 
against  corrupt  practices. 

Unlike  the  American  laws  —  except  in  Oregon  —  the 
English  corrupt  practices  acts  differentiate  between 
" corrupt  practices"  and  "illegal  practices".  Corrupt 
practices  according  to  the  English  statutes  are  bribery,, 
treating,  undue  influence,  personation,  and  knowingly 
making  false  declarations  with  regard  to  the  returns  of 
election  expenses.  They  are,  in  fact,  such  acts  as  no  man 
of  ordinary  intelligence  could  commit  without  being  fully 
conscious  that  he  is  doing  wrong.  Illegal  practices,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  the  minor  offenses,  such  as  providing 
bands  and  banners,  hiring  carriages  for  the  conveyance 
of  voters  to  the  polls,  and  exceeding  the  legal  maximum 

74 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  75- 

of  election  expenses.  In  other  words,  illegal  practices  are 
such  acts  as  a  person  might  commit  without  realizing 
that  he  is  doing  wrong  or  breaking  a  law.164 

BRIBERY 

The  English  legal  definition  of  bribery,  which  was 
given  in  the  Corrupt  Practices  Act  of  1854  and  left  intact 
by  the  legislation  of  1883,  is  made  extremely  broad  on 
account  of  the  very  elusive  character  of  the  offense,  and 
perhaps  also  on  account  of  the  tendency  of  the  courts  to 
interpret  legislation  of  this  sort  rather  strictly.  Ac- 
cording to  this  definition  a  person  is  guilty  of  bribery 
who  "directly  or  indirectly  gives,  lends,  procures,  agrees 
to  give,  agrees  to  lend,  agrees  to  procure,  offers,  prom- 
ises, promises  to  procure,  promises  to  endeavor  to  pro- 
cure any  money  or  valuable  consideration,  any  office, 
place,  or  employment  to  or  for  any  voter,  to  or  for  any 
person  on  behalf  of  any  voter,  to  or  for  any  other  person 
to  induce  any  voter  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting,  or  to 
induce  such  voter  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting,  or  to 
induce  such  person  to  procure  or  endeavor  to  procure  the 
return  of  any  person,  or  vote  of  any  person."  A  person 
who  for  himself  or  for  another  "receives  or  agrees  or 
contracts  to  receive,  the  gifts,  loans,  offers,  promises, 
procurements  or  agreements,  either  before,  during,  or 
after  an  election;  any  person  who  provides  money  with 
intent  that  it,  or  any  part  of  it,  shall  be  expended  in  bri- 
bery; and  any  person  who  pays  money  in  discharge  or 
repayment  of  money  so  expended"  is  also,  according  to 
the  English  statute,  guilty  of  bribery.165 

Some  States  have  attempted  to  frame  definitions  of 
bribery  as  comprehensive  as  those  found  in  English  law; 
and  it  appears  that  some  of  these  American  definitions 


76  APPLIED  HISTORY 

include  provisions  not  found  in  the  English  act.  Thus, 
the  Delaware  law  declares  the  offering  on  the  part  of  a 
candidate  to  serve  for  nothing  or  for  less  than  the  lawful 
salary  to  be  bribery.160  Moreover,  the  Indiana  provision 
seems  to  define  the  employment  of  paid  political  workers 
on  primary  or  election  day  as  a  means  of  bribery.167 
Oklahoma  legislation  includes  as  bribery  the  giving, 
promising,  or  loaning  of  money  to  be  used  for  election 
bets,  for  betting  with  an  elector  that  he  will  vote  for  a 
certain  named  candidate  or  ticket,  and  the  gift  or  promise 
of  money  gained  in  this  way.168  The  Montana  bribery 
provision  includes  the  paying  of  a  person's  naturaliza- 
tion fees;109  while  the  Washington  act  provides  that 
offering,  promising,  or  giving  of  victuals  or  drink  shall  be 
considered  bribery.170  Illinois  classifies  the  soliciting  or 
receiving  of  liquor  for  voting  as  "the  infamous  crime  of 
bribing".171 

TREATING 

The  Minnesota  Corrupt  Practices  Act,  passed  at  the 
1912  special  session  of  the  legislature,  contains  a  section 
directed  against  treating  similar  to  the  Oregon  provision, 
which  is  itself  an  elaboration  of  the  English  definition. 
According  to  the  Minnesota  legislation  "no  person  or 
candidate  shall,  either  by  himself  or  by  any  other  person, 
while  such  person  or  candidate  is  seeking  a  nomination 
or  election,  directly  or  indirectly,  give  or  provide,  or  pay, 
wholly  or  in  part,  the  expenses  of  giving  or  providing  any 
meat  or  drink  or  other  entertainment  or  provision, 
clothing,  liquors,  cigars  or  tobacco,  to  or  for  any  person 
for  the  purpose  of  or  with  the  intent  or  hope  to  influence 
that  person  or  any  other  person  to  give  or  refrain  from 
giving  his  vote  at  such  primary  or  election  to  or  for  any 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  77 

candidate  or  political  party  ticket,  or  measure  before  the 
people  or  on  account  of  such  person  or  other  person 
having  voted  or  refrained  from  voting  for  any  candidate 
or  the  candidates  of  any  political  party  or  organization 
or  measure  before  the  people,  or  being  about  to  vote,  or 
refrain  from  voting,  at  such  election.  No  elector  shall 
accept  or  take  any  such  meat,  drink,  entertainment,  pro- 
vision, clothing,  liquor,  cigars,  or  tobacco,  and  such  ac- 
ceptance shall  be  a  ground  of  challenge  to  his  vote  and  of 
rejecting  his  vote  on  a  contest."172 

The  Missouri  act  contains  similar  provisions  directed 
against  treating,  but  recognizes  the  theory  that  to  be  ef- 
fective the  treating  in  question  must  be  recent ;  and  so  it 
is  made  an  offense  only  when  done  within  ten  days  of  a 
primary  or  sixty  days  of  an  election.173 

UNDUE   INFLUENCE 

The  English  legal  definition  of  undue  influence  is 
copied  almost  literally  in  some  American  jurisdictions. 
But  the  Oregon  provision  is  an  amplification  of  the  Eng- 
lish definition,  providing  that  "every  person  who  shall 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  any  other  person  in 
his  behalf,  make  use  of  or  threaten  to  make  use  of  any 
force,  coercion,  violence,  restraint,  or  undue  influence,  or 
inflict  or  threaten  to  inflict,  by  himself  or  any  other  per- 
son, any  temporal  or  spiritual  injury,  damage,  harm,  or 
loss  upon  or  against  any  person  in  order  to  induce  or 
compel  such  person  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting  for  any 
candidate  or  the  ticket  of  any  political  party,  or  any 
measure  before  the  people,  or  any  person  who,  being  a 
minister,  preacher,  or  priest,  or  any  officer  of  any  church, 
religious  or  other  corporation  or  organization,  otherwise 
than  by  public  speech  or  print,  shall  urge,  persuade  or 


78  APPLIED  HISTORY 

command  any  voter  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting  for  or 
against  any  candidate  or  political  party  ticket  or  measure 
submitted  to  the  people,  for  or  on  account  of  his  re- 
ligious duty,  or  the  interest  of  any  corporation,  church 
or  other  organization,  or  who  shall  by  abduction,  duress 
or  any  fraudulent  contrivance,  impede  or  prevent  the 
free  exercise  of  the  franchise  by  any  voter  at  any  election, 
or  shall  thereby  compel,  induce  or  prevail  upon  any  elec- 
tor to  give  or  to  refrain  from  giving  his  vote  at  any  elec- 
tion, shall  be  guilty  of  undue  influence,  and  shall  be 
punished  as  for  a  corrupt  practice."174 

INTIMIDATION 

Most  of  the  States  have  enacted  legislation  similar  to 
that  of  Iowa  directed  against  intimidation  of  employees 
by  employers  and  interference  with  voters  at  the  polls. 
Oregon  entirely  prohibits  electioneering  on  election  day. 
To  protect  candidates  as  well  as  to  prevent  the  "nurs- 
ing" of  their  constituency  by  candidates,  the  Oregon  law 
further  provides  that  religious,  charitable,  or  other  sim- 
ilar organizations  may  not  demand  or  ask  contributions 
from  a  candidate,  nor  may  the  candidate  make  such  pay- 
ment if  asked.  Neither  may  tickets  for  entertainments  or 
balls  or  "advertising"  space  in  any  book,  program,  or 
other  publication  be  offered  a  candidate.  It  is  considered 
a  corrupt  practice  for  a  candidate  to  make  such  payment 
or  contribution  with  the  apparent  hope  or  intent  to  in- 
fluence the  election  results.  The  candidate's  usual  busi- 
ness advertising  or  payments  to  organizations  to  which 
he  has  been  a  regular  contributor  for  more  than  six 
months  prior  to  his  becoming  a  candidate,  or  ordinary 
church  contributions  are  exempted.175  Minnesota  also 
.attempts  to  secure  peaceful  elections  so  that  the  voter 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  79 

may  be  free  to  cast  Ms  ballot  undisturbed  by  outside  in- 
fluences. Thus,  the  distribution  of  campaign  literature 
and  providing,  selling,  or  wearing  political  badges,  but- 
tons, or  similar  insignia,  are  prohibited  on  election  clay.170 

PERSONATION 

Personation  is  the  form  of  illegal  voting  which  is 
clearly  defined  by  English  law.  Personation  is  commit- 
ted by  a  person  who  at  an  election  "applies  for  a  ballot 
paper  in  the  name  of  some  other  person,  whether  that 
name  be  that  of  a  person  living  or  dead,  or  of  a  fictitious 
person,  or  who,  having  voted  once  at  any  such  election, 
applies  at  the  same  election  for  a  ballot  paper  in  his  own 
name."177  To  prevent  colonizing  for  the  purpose  of  per- 
sonating, New  York  legislation  provides  in  detail  for  the 
control  of  hotels,  lodging  houses,  and  rooming  places.178 
The  Indiana  law  prohibits  the  importing  of  voters  from 
the  outside  or  from  locality  to  locality  within  the  State.179 
The  Kentucky  law  prohibits  the  use  of  the  naturalization 
papers  of  one  person,  dead  or  living,  by  another  per- 
son.180 The  New  Jersey  act  directed  against  colonizing 
prohibits  the  providing  wholly  or  in  part  for  the  expense 
of  boarding,  lodging,  or  maintaining  a  person  at  any 
place  or  domicile  in  any  election  precinct  or  ward  or 
district  to  secure  his  vote.lsl 

BETTING 

The  Minnesota  corrupt  practices  act  contains,  per- 
haps, as  broad  a  definition  of  betting  on  election  results 
as  can  be  found  in  the  statutes  of  any  State.  According 
to  this  provision  "any  candidate  who,  before  or  during 
any  primary  or  election  campaign,  makes  any  bet  or 
wager  of  anything  of  pecuniary  value,  or  in  any  manner 


80  APPLIED  HISTORY 

becomes  a  party  to  any  such  bet  or  wager  on  the  result  of 
the  primary  or  election  in  his  electoral  district,  in  any 
part  thereof,  or  on  any  event  or  contingency  relating  to 
any  pending  primary  or  election,  or  who  provides  money 
or  other  valuable  thing  to  be  used  by  any  person  in  bet- 
ting or  wagering  upon  the  results  of  any  impending 
primary  or  election,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  violation  of  this 
act.  Any  person,  who  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  the 
result  of  any  primary  or  election,  makes  any  bet  or  wager 
of  anything  of  pecuniary  value  on  the  result  of  such 
primary  or  election,  in  his  electoral  district  or  any  part 
thereof,  or  of  any  pending  primary  or  election,  or  on  any 
event  or  contingency  relating  thereto,  shall  be  guilty  of  a 
violation  of  this  act,  and  in  addition  thereto,  any  such  act 
shall  be  a  ground  of  challenge  against  his  right  to 
vote. ' ' 182  The  New  Jersey  provision  states  more  directly 
its  purpose  to  protect  the  voter  as  well  as  to  provide 
punishment  for  betting  as  a  matter  of  public  policy.  A 
part  of  the  section  directed  against  betting  reads  as  fol- 
lows :  ' '  Nor  shall  it  be  lawful  for  any  person,  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  make  a  bet  or  wager  with  a  voter,  depending 
upon  the  result  of  any  election,  with  the  intent  thereby  to 
procure  the  challenge  of  such  voter,  or  to  prevent  him 
from  voting  at  such  election."183  The  Kentucky  law 
strikes  at  the  more  subtle  purpose  of  betting  by  prohibit- 
ing the  betting  of  any  person  with  another  that  such 
other  person  will  vote  for  a  named  candidate.184 

EESTEICTIONS  ON  CAMPAIGN  CONTEIBUTIONS  AND 
EXPENDITUEES 

It  is  not,  however,  by  elaborate  definitions  of  the  gross 
forms  of  election  offenses  that  the  more  advanced  States 
are  attempting  to  eliminate  corruption  in  the  choice  of 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  81 

public  officials;  but  rather,  as  before  indicated,  by  cre- 
ating conditions  for  the  prevention  of  corruption,  in- 
timidation, or  deception  of  voters.  In  this  direction  our 
State  laws  also,  in  many  instances,  follow  the  lines  of 
English  legislation.  Indeed,  the  Peoples  Power  League 
of  Oregon  advanced  as  an  argument  for  the  Huntly  Bill 
the  fact  that  it  was  ' '  patterned  after  the  very  successful 
British  laws  of  1883  and  1895.  "1S3 

Restrictions  of  campaign  contributions  and  expend- 
itures are  forms  of  this  kind  of  legislation.  The  reasons 
for  prohibiting  campaign  funds  coming  from  certain 
sources  have  already  been  discussed  (See  above  Ch.  II). 
A  reason  for  restricting  the  total  amount  of  money  spent 
in  elections  i&  to  prevent  the  raising  of  large  funds  to 
debauch  the  electorate,  for  a  large  campaign  fund  is 
almost  sure  to  lead  to  political  corruption.  Restriction  of 
the  amount  which  a  candidate  may  contribute  or  expend 
is  to  keep  rich  and  poor  candidates  on  terms  of  equality, 
prevent  a  candidate  from  purchasing  an  office  through 
corrupt  use  of  money,  and  do  away  with  the  temptation 
an  officer  might  have  to  reimburse  himself,  directly  or 
indirectly,  from  the  public  office  for  his  extravagant  ex- 
penditure. Placing  a  money  standard  on  candidates  also 
leads  to  the  election  of  low  grade  men. 

Restrictions  as  to  the  purposes  for  which  money  may 
be  expended  is  based  on  the  theory  that  the  use  of  money 
in  any  way  to  influence  even  remotely  the  vote  of  the 
elector  through  corruption,  show,  or  deceit  should  be 
prohibited.  A  reason  for  legislation  requiring  that  all 
funds  collected  and  expended  pass  through  the  hands  of 
a  treasurer  or  some  other  legally  recognized  official  or 
officials  is  to  make  it  possible  to  hold  some  one  respon- 
sible and  thus  render  the  enforcement  of  laws  of  this 
character  more  easy  of  accomplishment. 

6 


82  APPLIED  HISTORY 

A  number  of  States  have  laws  similar  to  that  of  Iowa 
which  prohibit  corporate  contributions  to  campaign 
funds.  The  Oregon  law  prohibits  political  contributions 
from  all  non-elective  officeholders ;  nor  may  any  one 
receive  or  solicit  funds  from  such  officers.  The  act 
further  prohibits  the  contribution  or  knowingly  receiving 
of  funds  in  the  name  of  any  other  than  the  person  fur- 
nishing the  money.180  According  to  Arizona  legislation 
the  assessments  of  candidates  must  be  voluntary  and  the 
amount  agreed  upon  at  a  meeting  at  which  none  but  can- 
didates are  present.187  Ohio  requires  every  corporation 
or  public  utility  to  file  with  the  tax  commission  every 
year  an  affidavit  sworn  to  by  an  officer  having  knowledge 
of  the  facts  set  forth  as  to  whether  the  corporation  or 
public  utility  during  the  past  year,  directly  or  indirectly, 
made  any  political  contributions.188 

Several  States  require  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mittee and  treasurer  to  have  charge  of  campaign  con- 
tributions and  expenditures.  Maryland  requires  all 
committees  to  appoint  a  treasurer  before  they  may  collect 
or  expend  campaign  funds.  Written  notice  must  be  given 
the  proper  officials  of  such  appointment,  and  all  money 
collected  or  expended  must  pass  through  the  hands  of  the 
treasurer.  The  treasurer  is  required  to  give  a  bond 
approved  of  by  the  committee!  The  candidate  may  ap- 
point a  "Political  Agent"  to  assist  him  in  his  candidacy. 
The  political  agent  and  treasurer  may  act  for  more  than 
one  candidate.189  According  to  the  New  Jersey  law  a 
candidate  may  appoint  a  committee  of  from  one  to  five 
members  to  "receive,  expend,  audit,  and  disburse"  all 
campaign  funds.  The  candidate  may  declare  himself  the 
person  selected  for  such  purpose  or  may  designate  the 
regular  party  committee  to  act  for  him.    The  committee 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  83 

may  act  conjointly  for  any  number  of  candidates.  One 
of  the  committee,  who  is  selected  by  the  other  members 
as  treasurer,  receives  and  expends  the  political  funds.190 
The  Minnesota  act  permits  a  candidate  for  nomination  to 
select  a  "single  personal  campaign  committee  to  consist 
of  one  or  more  persons. ' '  The  candidate  may  delegate  to 
this  committee  the  expenditure  of  any  part  of  the  total 
expenditure  permitted  him  or  in  his  behalf.191  According 
to  "Wisconsin  legislation  "no  person  or  group  of  persons, 
other  than  the  candidate  or  his  personal  campaign  com- 
mittee or  a  party  committee,  shall  make  any  disburse- 
ment for  political  purposes  otherwise  than  through  a 
personal  campaign  committee  or  a  party  committee,  ex- 
cept that  expenses  incurred  for  rent  of  hall  or  other 
rooms,  for  hiring  speakers,  for  printing,  for  postage,  for 
telegraphing  or  telephoning,  for  advertising,  for  distrib- 
uting printed  matter,  for  clerical  assistance  and  for  hotel 
and  traveling  expenses  may  be  contributed  and  paid  by  a 
person  or  group  of  persons  residing  within  the  county 
where  such  expenses  are  incurred;  and  except  that  a 
speaker  may  pay  his  actual  traveling  expenses  in  going 
to  and  from  meetings  addressed  by  him."192 

The  size  of  campaign  funds  is  regulated  in  several 
ways.  In  Minnesota  a  candidate  for  Governor  may  ex- 
pend, $7,000;  candidates  for  other  State  offices,  $3,500; 
for  State  Senator,  $600 ;  for  member  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, $400 ;  for  presidential  elector-at-large,  $500 ; 
and  for  presidential  elector  for  any  congressional  dis- 
trict, $100.  For  other  offices  the  amount  is  based  on  the 
salary  or  fees,  an  expenditure  of  one-third  of  the  first 
year's  salary  being  permitted.  If  there  is  no  compensa- 
tion attached  to  the  office,  or  if  it  is  one  just  created  and 
in  cases  not  specifically  provided  for,  the  candidate  is 


84  APPLIED  HISTORY 

restricted  to  an  expenditure  of  $100.  In  a  general  elec- 
tion the  State  Central  Committee  may  expend  in  addition 
a  sum  not  to  exceed  $10,000.193  The  New  Jersey  law  is 
similar  to  the  Minnesota  act  regarding  fixed  expenditures 
for  candidates,  except  that  it  provides  that  the  candidate 
may  spend  not  to  exceed  twenty-five  per  cent  of  a  year 's 
salary  in  the  campaign  for  nomination  and  a  similar 
amount  in  the  campaign  for  election.1"4 

West  Virginia  limits  a  candidate's  expenditure  ac- 
cording to  the  number  of  votes  cast  for  the  office  at  the 
last  election.  If  there  were  5000  votes  or  less  cast  the 
candidate  is  limited  to  an  expenditure  of  $250 ;  for  each 
additional  100  votes  over  5000  up  to  25,000,  $2.00 ;  for  each 
additional  100  votes  over  25,000  to  50,000,  $1.00;  for  each 
additional  100  votes  over  50,000,  50  cents.195 

Wyoming  legislation  permits  candidates  to  expend 
twenty  per  cent  of  a  year's  salary  for  nomination  and 
twenty  per  cent  for  election  expenses.  But  no  candidate 
is  restricted  to  an  expenditure  of  less  than  $100.  More- 
over, this  does  not  include  traveling  expenses  and  pay- 
ments for  space  in  the  State  Campaign  Book.^* 

Oregon  fixes  a  candidate's  expenditure  for  the  pri- 
mary campaign  at  fifteen  per  cent  of  one  year's  salary 
in  addition  to  the  fee  for  space  in  a  State  publicity 
pamphlet.  In  the  campaign  for  election  he  may  expend 
ten  per  cent  of  a  year's  salary.  No  candidate,  however, 
is  restricted  to  less  than  $100.  The  act  further  provides 
that  "the  contribution,  expenditure  or  liability  of  a 
descendant,  ascendant,  brother,  sister,  uncle,  aunt,  neph- 
ew, niece,  wife,  partner,  employer,  employee  or  fellow 
official  or  fellow  employee  of  a  corporation  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  that  of  the  candidate  himself."197 

The  Nebraska  act  forbids  a  political  committee  to 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  85 

receive  more  than  $1,000  from  any  one  person  during  the 
same  campaign.  Nor  may  the  treasurer  or  any  other 
person  accept  a  single  political  contribution  to  exceed 
$25  within  two  days  of  the  election.198 

Various  methods  are  provided  to  regulate  the  pur- 
poses for  which  money  may  be  expended  in  elections. 
Some  States  prescribe  minutely  what  payments  are  per- 
mitted and  prohibit  all  other  payments ;  others  list  illegal 
expenditures;  and  still  others  include  both  legal  and  il- 
legal expenditures.  Again,  some  States  restrict  the  use 
of  money  for  certain  purposes  on  election  day. 

Maine  permits  a  candidate  at  a  caucus,  primary  or 
general  election,  to  expend  money  for  postage,  telegrams, 
telephones,  stationery,  printing,  express,  and  traveling. 
The  treasurer  of  the  political  committee  or  the  political 
agent  of  the  candidate  may  expend  money  only  for  the 
following  expenses : 

(a)  Of  hiring1  public  halls  and  music  for  conventions,  public 
meetings,  and  public  primaries,  and  for  advertising  the  same  by 
posters  or  otherwise;  (b)  of  printing  and  circulating  political 
newspapers,  pamphlets,  and  books;  (c)  of  printing  and  distrib- 
uting ballots  and  posters;  (d)  of  renting  rooms  to  be  used  by 
political  committees;  (e)  of  compensating  clerks  and  other  per- 
sons employed  in  committee  rooms  and  at  the  polls;  (f)  of  travel- 
ing expenses  of  political  agents,  committees  and  public  speakers ; 
(g)  of  necessary  postage,  telegrams,  telephones,  printing,  ex- 
press, and  conveyance  charges.199 

Minnesota  legislation  limits  the  candidate's  contribu- 
tions or  expenditures  to  secure  nomination  or  election  to 
the  following  purposes : 

(1)  For  the  candidates'  necessary  personal  traveling  ex- 
penses ;  for  postage,  telegraph,  telephone,  or  other  public  mes- 
senger service. 


86  APPLIED  HISTORY 

(2)  For  rent  and  necessary  furnishing  of  hall  or  room  dur- 
ing such  candidacy,  for  the  delivery  of  speeches,  relative  to  prin- 
ciples or  candidates. 

(3)  For  payment  of  speakers  and  musicians  at  public  meet- 
ings, and  their  necessary  traveling  expenses. 

(4)  Printing  and  distribution  of  list  of  candidates,  sample 
ballots,  pamphlets,  newspapers,  circulars,  cards,  hand  bills, 
posters  and  announcements  relative  to  candidates,  or  public  issue 
or  principles. 

(5)  For  copying  and  classifying  poll  lists,  for  making  can- 
vasses of  voters  and  for  challengers  at  the  polls. 

(6)  For  filing  fees  to  the  proper  public  officer,  and  if  nom- 
inated at  any  primary  for  contributions  to  the  party  committee. 

(7)  For  campaign  advertising  in  newspapers,  periodicals, 
or  magazines. 

According  to  the  same  statute  personal  campaign  or 
party  committees  may  expend  campaign  funds  only  for 
the  following  purposes : 

(1)  For  maintenance  of  headquarters  and  for  hall  rentals 
incident  to  the  holding  of  public  meetings. 

(2)  For  necessary  stationery,  postage,  telegraph,  telephone, 
messenger  and  clerical  assistance  to  be  employed  at  a  candidate's 
headquarters  or  at  the  headquarters  of  the  committee,  incident 
to  the  writing,  addressing  and  mailing  of  letters  and  campaign 
literature. 

(3)  For  the  necessary  expenses,  incident  to  the  furnishing 
and  printing  of  badges,  banners  and  other  insignia,  to  the  print- 
ing and  posting  of  hand  bills,  posters,  lithographs  and  other 
campaign  literature,  and  the  distribution  thereof  through  the 
mails  or  otherwise. 

(4)  For  campaign  advertising  in  newspapers,  periodicals, 
or  magazines,  as  provided  in  this  act.  (i.  e.  as  "Paid  Adver- 
tisements.") 

(5)  For  wages,  and  actual  necessary  personal  expenses  of 
public  speakers,  organizers  and  musicians. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  8.7 

(6)  For  traveling  expenses  of  members  of  the  committee. 

(7)  For  preparing  poll  lists  and  for  challengers  at  the  polls. 

The  act  also  provides  that  no  person  may  pay  a  voter 
for  "loss  of  time"  for  voting  or  registering.  Nor  may 
any  one  pay  personal  workers  at  primaries  or  elections, 
except  poll  watchers.  No  person  may  "buy,  sell,  give  or 
provide  any  political  badges,  buttons  or  other  political 
insignia  to  be  worn  at  or  about  the  polls  on  the  day  of  any 
primary  or  election,  and  no  such  political  badge,  button 
or  other  insignia  shall  be  worn  at  or  about  the  polls  on 
any  primary  or  election  day."  Conveyance  of  voters  to 
the  polls  is  also  prohibited.  Nor  may  money  be  paid  to 
induce  a  person  to  become  a  candidate,  withdraw  as  a 
candidate,  or  refrain  from  becoming  a  candidate.200  The 
Massachusetts  act  permits  a  political  committee  to  hire 
' '  not  more  than  one  conveyance  to  be  used  at  each  polling 
place  at  elections  only."201 

New  Jersey  prohibits  the  expenditures  for  the  con- 
veyance of  voters  to  the  polls  and  for  the  hiring  of  any 
"watchers,  agents  or  challengers  for  any  work  on  elec- 
tion day."  Each  party  or  organization  may,  however, 
employ  two  challengers  or  agents  in  each  polling  place 
who  must  wear  badges  furnished  by  the  State  showing 
what  candidate  or  party  employs  them.  The  act  contains 
elaborate  provisions  for  conveyance  to  the  polls,  at  State 
expense,  of  voters  living  at  a  distance  of  at  least  two 
miles  or  who  are  ' '  aged  or  infirm ' '  and  have  no  means  of 
conveyance  of  their  own  nor  live  near  a  trolley  line.202 

PUBLICITY  OF  CAMPAIGN  CONTRIBUTIONS  AND  EXPENDITURES 

The  purpose  of  requiring  publicity  of  campaign  con- 
tributions and  expenditures  has  already  been  stated  (See 
above  Ch.  II,  p.  72).    There  is  some  difference  of  opinion 


88  APPLIED  HISTORY 

as  to  when  the  publicity  statements  of  candidates,  or 
others  handling  political  funds,  ought  to  be  filed  or  made 
public.  Publicity  before  election  would  tend  to  prevent 
the  collection  or  expenditure  of  large  campaign  funds  on 
account  of  the  fear  of  the  effect  on  voters.  Publicity 
after  the  election  may  have  the  same  effect  on  the  size  of 
the  campaign  fund,  as  large  contributors  for  selfish  pur- 
poses would  not  care  to  contribute,  fearing  that  an 
aroused  public  opinion  would  make  uncertain  the  carry- 
ing out  of  ante-election  promises  or  understandings.  A 
possible  weakness  is  the  dependence  of  such  contributors 
on  the  short  memory  of  the  public.  Publicity  both  before 
and  after  the  primary  or  election  would  seem  to  be  the 
solution.  One  difficulty  in  making  laws  of  this  character 
effective  is  that  of  securing  complete  detailed  statements 
as  to  who  the  contributors  are  and  for  what  purpose  the 
money  was  expended.203 

In  accordance  with  Minnesota  legislation  statements 
of  campaign  contributions  and  expenditures  must  be  filed 
with  the  proper  officer  by  candidates,  secretaries  of  every 
personal  campaign  committee,  and  secretaries  of  every 
party  committee  on  the  second  Saturday  after  a  candi- 
date or  committee  has  made  its  first  disbursement  or 
incurred  any  obligation,  and  every  second  Saturday  of 
each  calendar  month  thereafter  until  all  disbursements 
have  been  accounted  for;  and  all  such  persons  are  also 
required  on  the  Saturday  preceding  any  election  or  pri- 
mary, to  "file  a  financial  statement  verified  upon  the  oath 
of  such  candidate  or  upon  the  oath  of  the  secretary  of 
such  committee"  covering  all  transactions  not  included 
in  former  statements.  Each  statement  following  the  first 
is  to  contain  a  summary  of  all  preceding  statements  and 
also  a  summary  of  all  items  given  before.     Statements 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  89 

must  also  be  filed  by  other  political  committees,  within 
thirty  days  after  any  primary  or  election.  The  state- 
ments are  to  include  in  detail  all  contributions  received 
or  promised,  source,  date,  and  the  total  amount;  also  all 
disbursements  or  obligations,  to  whom,  specific  purpose 
for  which  paid,  date,  and  the  total  amount.  Failure  to 
file  statements  keeps  the  candidate's  name  off  the  ticket. 
If  statements  are  not  filed  at  the  proper  time,  the  officer 
with  whom  they  are  supposed  to  be  filed  must  notify  the 
candidate  or  committee  of  the  failure.  He  is  also  re- 
quired to  notify  the  county  attorney  of  the  county  where 
the  candidate  resides  or  where  the  headquarters  of  the 
negligent  committee  are  located.  The  county  attorney  is 
also  required  to  notify  the  delinquent  candidate  or  secre- 
tary, and  if  no  statement  is  filed  within  ten  days  the 
county  attorney  is  required  to  prosecute.204 

Oregon  provides  for  the  filing  with  the  proper  officer 
of  sworn  itemized  statements  of  campaign  contributions, 
expenditures,  and  liabilities  within  fifteen  days  after 
nomination  or  election.  Treasurers  of  political  com- 
mittees, political  agents,  as  well  as  persons  who  receive 
or  expend  more  than  $50,  are  likewise  required  to  keep 
similar  accounts  and  file  statements  within  ten  days  after 
the  election.  "Every  payment,  except  payments  less  in 
the  aggregate  than  five  dollars  to  any  person,  shall  be 
vouched  for  by  a  receipted  bill  stating  the  particulars  of 
expense",  which  must  also  be  filed  with  the  statements. 
"The  books  of  account  of  every  treasurer  of  any  political 
party,  committee  or  organization,  during  an  election  cam- 
paign, shall  be  open  at  all  reasonable  office  hours  to  the 
inspection  of  the  treasurer  and  chairman  of  any  opposing 
political  party  or  organization  for  the  same  electoral  dis- 
trict ;  and  his  right  of  inspection  may  be  enforced  by  writ 
of  mandamus  by  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction." 


90  APPLIED  HISTORY 

The  Oregon  act  contains  elaborate  provisions  for  the 
inspection  of  the  filed  statements  within  ten  days  after 
filing  by  the  officers  with  whom  they  are  filed.  If  not 
filed,  or  if  the  filed  statement  does  not  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  law,  or  upon  the  written  complaint  of  candi- 
date or  voter  on  the  same  grounds,  the  officer  is  required 
to  notify  the  delinquent  person.  The  complaint  entered 
by  the  candidate  or  voter  must  state  in  detail  the  reasons 
for  complaint,  be  sworn  to,  and  filed  with  the  officer 
within  sixty  days  after  the  filing  of  the  statement  or 
amended  statement.  Failure  to  comply,  on  being  notified, 
means  prosecution  by  the  district  attorney,  if  the  evi- 
dence seems  to  him  sufficient  to  warrant  it.  The  circuit 
court  of  the  county  in  which  the  statements  are  to  be  filed 
may  upon  the  application  of  the  Attorney  General,  dis- 
trict attorney,  or  the  petition  of  a  candidate  or  voter, 
compel  the  filing  of  the  proper  statement.  All  statements 
filed  are  to  be  left  for  six  months  as  part  of  the  public  rec- 
ords subject  to  public  inspection,  and  certified  copies  may 
be  secured  as  of  other  public  records.  The  totals  of  each 
statement  and  the  name  of  the  person  or  candidate  filing 
the  statement  are  published  in  the  following  annual  re- 
port of  the  officer  with  whom  the  statements  are  filed.205 

According  to  the  English  law  the  returning  officer  at 
an  election  is  required  to  publish  a  summary  of  the  re- 
turns of  election  expenses  in  not  less  than  two  news- 
papers circulating  in  the  county  or  borough  where  the 
election  was  held,  within  ten  days  after  receiving  the 
statement  from  the  candidate's  election  agent.  The  re- 
turning agent  is  also  required  to  specify  the  time  and 
place  where  the  complete  statements  may  be  inspected.206 

The  New  York  act  provides  that  vouchers  need  not  be 
filed  for  expenditures  of  less  than  $5,  except  when  pay- 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  91 

nients  are  to  political  workers,  watchers,  or  messen- 
gers.207 The  New  Jersey  law  provides  that  a  candidate- 
seeking  to  avoid  the  responsibility  of  any  payment  made 
by  any  person  in  his  behalf,  of  which  he  has  knowledge, 
must  set  forth  such  payment  and  disclaim  responsibility 
for  the  same.  The  act  further  provides  that  all  claims, 
against  the  committee  must  be  presented  within  four  days 
after  a  primary  election  and  ten  days  after  the  general 
election  and  paid  within  fifteen  days  after  the  completion 
of  the  official  canvass.  Payments  of  claims  may  be  made 
after  the  time  limit  only  after  the  court  of  the  county 
wherein  the  statement  is  filed  is  satisfied  that  there  was. 
no  intentional  misconduct,  or  that  there  was  good  reason 
for  the  delay.2"8  The  Minnesota  act  prohibits  any  pay- 
ment of  claims  unless  presented  within  ten  days  after  the 
primary  or  election.209 

STATE  AID  IN  CAMPAIGNS 

State  financing  of  political  campaigns  has  been  advo- 
cated in  recent  years.  It  has  been  urged  against  this  plan 
that  it  is  a  good  thing  for  a  party  to  be  obliged  to  appeal 
to  the  public  for  financial  support.  State  aid,  it  is  held, 
will  tend  to  fossilize  parties.  State  aid  thus  far  has  been 
restricted  to  the  publishing  of  publicity  pamphlets,  in 
connection  with  which  the  candidates  or  parties  are 
charged  a  nominal  sum  for  space  taken.210 

The  Oregon  act  provides  for  the  publication  of  a 
pamphlet  by  the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  information 
of  voters  regarding  candidates  and  parties.  In  this 
pamphlet  a  candidate  or  his  friends  —  unless  the  candi- 
date notifies  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  contrary  — 
may  secure  space  for  urging  his  nomination.  Not  later 
than  thirty-three  days  before  the  primary  the  inforina- 


92  APPLIED  HISTORY 

tion  desired  to  be  conveyed  to  the  voters  and  signed  by 
the  candidate,  is  filed  with  the  Secretary.  Persons  op- 
posing the  candidate  may  also  file  signed  statements 
giving  reasons  why  such  person  ought  not  to  be  nom- 
inated. Such  opposing  statement  must,  however,  first 
have  been  served  upon  the  candidate.  The  candidate  is 
given  one  page  and  his  opponent  one  page  at  the  same 
rate.  A  person  submitting  a  statement  is  subject  to  the 
general  laws  regarding  slander  and  libel.  Candidates 
must  pay  for  at  least  one  page  at  a  rate  varying  from 
$100  for  a  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  to  $10  for 
State  Senator  or  State  Representative.  A  candidate  may 
secure  up  to  three  additional  pages  for  which  he  must 
pay  at  the  rate  of  $100  per  page.  The  candidates '  names 
appear  in  the  pamphlet  in  the  same  order  as  on  the  official 
ballot.  The  county  clerks  are  required  to  furnish  the 
Secretary  of  State  with  the  names  and  addresses  of  the 
registered  voters;  and  at  least  eight  days  before  the 
primary  the  Secretary  of  State  must  mail  the  pamphlets 
to  the  voters.  The  authority  for  all  information  must  be 
given. 

A  committee  or  organization  may  secure,  at  a  rate  of 
$100  per  page,  four  pages  in  which  to  advocate  candidates 
for  the  nomination  for  President  or  Vice  President.  Any 
elector  favoring  or  opposing  such  candidates  may  at  a 
similar  rate  secure  up  to  four  pages  to  favor  or  oppose 
such  candidates.  Not  later  than  thirty  days  before  the 
general  election  the  State  executive  committee  and  man- 
aging officers  of  any  political  party  or  organization, 
liaving  nominated  candidates  or  independent  candidates, 
may  file  arguments  for  the  success  of  the  party  and  its 
candidates  or  opposing  a  party  or  its  candidates.  Au- 
thority must  be  given  for  all  information  filed.     The 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  93 

party  is  limited  to  twenty-four  pages  at  a  rate  of  $50  per 
page  and  the  independent  candidate  to  two  pages  at  the 
same  rate.  Regular  candidates  may  secure  up  to  four 
pages  at  a  rate  of  $100  per  page,  but  for  candidates  for 
the  presidency  or  vice  presidency  there  are  no  charges. 
These  pamphlets  must  be  circulated  at  least  ten  days  be- 
fore the  election.211 

According  to  the  Wisconsin  laws  statements  relative 
to  amendments  to  the  Constitution  and  measures  filed  by 
the  State  central  committee  or  by  some  one  authorized 
by  it  to  be  submitted  to  popular  vote  may  also  be  included 
in  the  publicity  pamphlet  without  charges.  The  candi- 
date may  permit  his  party  to  use  space  allotted  to  him. 
The  charges  for  space  in  the  pamphlet  distributed  before 
the  primary  or  election  varies  with  the  office  from  $300 
for  the  first  page  with  $150  for  a  second  page  for  a  candi- 
date for  the  United  States  Senate  to  $20  for  a  single  page 
allowed  a  candidate  for  a  member  of  the  State  assembly. 
The  party  is  charged  at  the  rate  of  $300  a  page.212 

BESTKICTIONS  ON  PUBLICATIONS 

The  importance  of  periodicals  and  campaign  litera- 
ture as  a  means  of  informing  voters  of  political  matters 
is  unquestioned,  and  the  need  of  preventing  newspapers 
or  other  publications  from  deceiving  the  voters  as  to 
ownership  of  the  paper  or  character  of  the  published 
article  is  apparent.  To  prevent  fraud  of  this  character 
legislation  has  been  enacted  in  some  States  (1)  to  pro- 
hibit the  purchase  of  editorial  support,  publication  of 
political  advertisements  as  news,  or  the  publication  and 
distribution  of  anonymous  or  libelous  campaign  litera- 
ture, and  (2)  to  secure  publicity  of  ownership. 

According  to  Minnesota  legislation  no  publisher  of  a 


t94  APPLIED  HISTORY 

newspaper,  periodical,  or  magazine  may  insert  in  any  part 
of  such  publication  any  paid  matter  intended  to  influence, 
'or  such  as  will  tend  to  influence,  voters  unless  marked 
in  pica  capital  letters  as  "Paid  Advertisement"  with 
the  amount  paid,  name  and  address  of  the  candidate  in 
whose  behalf  the  matter  is  inserted  and  of  any  other 
person  authorizing  the  publication  and  the  author  there- 
•of.  Nor  may  the  publisher  of  any  such  publication  insert 
in  any  part  of  the  paper  any  matter  of  a  political  nature, 
or  any  political  editorial  relative  to  a  candidate,  unless 
the  publisher  files  with  the  Secretary  of  State  within  six 
months  before  a  primary  or  election,  or  ten  days  before 
a  special  election,  a  sworn  statement  giving  the  name  or 
names  of  the  owners. 

Candidates  or  members  of  personal  campaign  or 
party  committees  having  an  interest  in  a  newspaper  or 
periodical  circulating  in  whole  or  in  part  within  the  State 
must,  before  printing  any  political  matter  to  influence 
voters  except  as  paid  advertisements,  file  with  the  county 
auditor  of  the  county  in  which  they  live  a  verified  declara- 
tion stating  the  name  of  the  publication  with  the  exact 
nature  and  extent  of  control. 

No  owner,  publisher,  editor,  reporter,  agent,  or  em- 
ployee of  a  publication  may  "directly  or  indirectly, 
solicit,  receive  or  accept  any  payment,  promise,  or  com- 
pensation, nor  shall  any  person  pay  or  promise  to  pay, 
or  in  any  manner  compensate  any  such  owner,  publisher, 
editor,  reporter,  agent  or  employe,  directly  or  indirectly, 
for  influencing  or  attempting  to  influence  through  any 
printing  matter  in  such  newspaper  any  voting  at  any 
election  or  primary  through  any  means  whatsoever,  ex- 
cept through  the  matter  inserted  in  such  newspaper  or 
periodical  as  'Paid  Advertisement',  and  so  designated." 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  95 

The  Minnesota  act  further  provides  that  all  other 
campaign  literature  must  bear  the  name  and  address  of 
the  author,  the  candidate  in  whose  behalf  it  is  published 
and  circulated,  as  well  as  of  other  persons  or  committees 
causing-  it  to  be  published.  It  also  provides  that  no  one 
may  knowingly  make,  publish,  or  cause  to  be  published, 
any  false  statements  relative  to  a  candidate  or  measure 
to  be  voted  on  which  will  tend  to  influence  or  is  intended 
to'influence  a  voter.213 

The  Texas  act  directed  against  corrupt  practices  pro- 
hibits publications  from  receiving  political  advertising  at 
more  than  the  usual  rates.  The  act  also  prohibits  an 
editor  or  manager  of  a  publication  from  demanding  or 
receiving  pay  for  editorial  support  or  opposition  of  a 
candidate  or  measure.214 

According  to  Oregon  legislation  political  literature 
must  bear  the  name  of  the  author,  printer,  and  publisher. 
Libelous  publications  are  prohibited,  but  it  is  sufficient 
defense  for  the  person  accused  to  prove  that  he  had 
reasonable  ground  for  believing  the  charges  were  true 
and  that  he  was  not  actuated  by  malice.  The  author  of 
any  such  statement  of  charges  must,  moreover,  at  least 
fifteen  days  before  circulating  such  statement  serve  the 
person  accused  with  a  written  copy  calling  his  attention 
specially  to  the  charges.  It  must  also  be  shown  that  be- 
fore circulating  the  publication  the  author  received  and 
read  the  denial  or  explanation  of  the  accused  person,  if 
any  were  offered.215 

The  Ohio  law  prohibits  any  newspaper  or  other  pub- 
lication from  demanding  through  notice  printed  in  its 
columns,  or  by  personal  call  of  some  officer  or  agent 
of  the  publication,  promises,  pledges,  or  committals  from 
candidates.210 


96  APPLIED  HISTORY 

ENFORCEMENT   OF   THE   LAW  :    PROCEDURE 

The  failure  to  prevent  corrupt  practices  lias  not  been 
so  much  the  lack  of  statutory  definitions  and  provisions 
for  penalties  as  the  non-enforcement  of  the  laws  en- 
acted. No  special  provision  for  judicial  procedure  was 
provided  in  the  earlier  laws;  nor  was  it  made  the  duty 
of  any  one  in  particular  to  enforce  the  legislative  pro- 
visions. The  county  attorney,  as  a  county  official  aptly 
said,  has  enough  troubles  without  looking  for  additional 
burdens.  The  electors,  feeling  no  direct  interest  or 
knowing  the  process  a  difficult  one,  seldom  have  taken 
action. 

To  make  the  law  effective  the  Wisconsin  act  provides 
that  any  elector,  having  knowledge  of  the  violation  of  the 
corrupt  practices  statute  of  1911  by  any  candidates  for 
whom  that  elector  had  a  right  to  vote  or  by  the  personal 
campaign  committee  of  the  candidate  or  by  any  member 
of  the  committee,  may,  by  a  verified  petition,  apply  to  the 
county  judge  of  the  county  in  which  the  violation  took 
place,  to  the  attorney  general,  or  to  the  governor  for 
permission  to  bring  a  special  proceeding  to  investigate 
and  decide  whether  the  charge  is  true  or  not,  and  for  the 
appointment  of  special  counsel  to  conduct  the  proceeding 
for  the  State.  If  it  appears  from  the  petition  ' '  or  other- 
wise" that  there  has  been  such  violation  and  that  it  is 
possible  to  secure  sufficient  evidence  to  bring  successful 
suit  the  official  appealed  to  must  permit  the  bringing  of 
the  proceedings  and  must  appoint  special  counsel  to  con- 
duct the  proceedings.  If  permission  is  granted  and 
special  counsel  appointed,  the  elector  bringing  the  suit 
may  ' '  by  a  special  proceeding  brought  in  the  circuit  court 
in  the  name  of  the  state  upon  the  relation  of  such  elector. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  97 

investigate  and  determine  whether  or  not  such  candidate, 
committee  or  member  thereof,  has  violated  any  provision 
of  this  act. ' '  In  the  proceeding  the  complaint  giving  the 
name  of  the  offender  and  detailed  grounds  for  the  contest 
must  be  served  with  the  summons  and  filed  within  five 
days  after  being  served.  The  answer  to  the  complaint 
must  be  served  and  filed  within  ten  days  after  the  service 
of  the  summons  and  complaint.  An  additional  five  days 
notice  of  the  trial  is  required. 

Moreover,  an  election  contest  of  this  character  has 
precedence  over  any  civil  case  of  a  different  character 
pending  in  the  court.  The  court  is  always  to  be  consid- 
ered open  for  trial  of  these  cases,  whether  in  or  out  of 
term.  The  method  of  trial  is  the  same  as  in  other  civil 
actions,  but  the  court  may  without  a  jury  decide  the  facts 
of  the  case  as  well  as  the  issues  of  law.  If  more  than  one 
case  of  this  nature  is  before  the  court  at  the  same  time 
they  may  be  consolidated  and  heard  together,  the  ex- 
penses in  connection  with  the  cases  being  apportioned 
equally.  If  the  decision  is  for  the  plaintiff,  he  may  com- 
pel the  defendant  to  make  good  his  expenditures.  The 
plaintiff  may  not  be  compelled  to  pay  any  judgment  for 
costs,  unless  it  is  shown  that  the  proceeding  was  not 
instituted  by  him  in  good  faith.  Moreover,  "all  costs 
and  disbursements  in  such  cases  shall  be  in  the  discretion 
of  the  court."  Appeal  may  be  taken,  but  the  party  ap- 
pealing may  not  obtain  a  stay  of  the  proceedings.  Nor 
maj7  an  injunction  to  suspend  or  stay  any  proceeding  be 
issued  except  by  applying  to  the  court,  or  the  presiding 
judge  of  the  court,  upon  notifying  all  parties  concerned 
and  after  hearing.  A  candidate  or  other  person  involved 
may  also  be  criminally  prosecuted.  The  special  counsel 
may  be  paid  not  to  exceed  $25  while  trying  the  case  and 


98  APPLIED  HISTORY 

not  to  exceed  $10  per  day  for  the  time  spent  in  preparing 
the  case.  A  judgment  under  this  provision  does  not  bar 
later  criminal  action.217 

The  New  Jersey  act  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  prose- 
cutor of  the  pleas  of  the  county,  on  being  notified  by  any 
officer  or  other  person  of  any  violation  of  the  corrupt 
practices  act,  to  "diligently  inquire  into  the  facts  of  such 
violation."  If  there  is  reasonable  ground  for  prosecu- 
tion it  is  made  his  duty  to  present  the  charges,  with  all 
the  evidence  he  can  procure,  to  the  grand  jury  of  the 
county.  If  the#  prosecutor  fails  or  refuses  to  do  his  duty 
as  required,  he  is  held  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  on 
conviction  forfeits  his  office.  Any  citizen  may  employ  an 
attorney  to  assist  the  prosecutor  to  perform  his  duties. 
The  prosecutor  and  court  must  recognize  the  attorney  as 
associate  counsel  in  the  proceedings.  No  prosecution, 
action,  or  proceeding  may  be  dismissed  without  notice  to 
or  against  the  objection  of  the  associate  counsel  until  the 
reasons  of  the  prosecutor  for  the  dismissal  with  the  ob- 
jections of  the  associate  counsel  have  been  filed  in  writ- 
ing, argued  by  the  counsel,  and  fully  considered  by  the 
court.  The  court,  however,  is  empowered  to  fix  the  time 
within  which  reasons  or  objections  may  be  filed.  The  act 
further  provides  that  a  contest  must  be  commenced  with- 
in ten  days  after  the  primary  or  thirty  days  after  a 
general  election,  unless  the  ground  of  action  is  discov- 
ered from  the  publicity  statements  filed,  when  action  may 
be  brought  not  later  than  ten  days  or  thirty  days  after 
such  discovery,  respectively.  An  action  to  annul  the 
nomination  or  election  of  any  nominated  or  elected  per- 
son must  be  filed  in  the  circuit  court  of  the  county  in 
which  the  person  resides  whose  right  is  contested.218 

The  New  Jersey  definition  of  agency  is  based  on  the 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  99 

English  definition.  Moreover,  a  reason  advanced  for  the 
success  of  the  English  act  is  its  broad  definition  of 
agency,  preventing  a  candidate  from  profiting  by  the  acts 
of  a  second  party  while  disclaiming  responsibility.  Ac- 
cording to  the  New  Jersey  provision  ' '  any  candidate  who 
procures,  aids,  assists,  counsels,  or  advises  the  payment 
of  any  money  or  other  valuable  thing  by  or  on  behalf  of 
a  committee  selected  under  the  provisions  of  section  one 
of  this  act  [the  section  relative  to  the  expenditure  of 
campaign  funds  by  a  committee  designated  by  candidate] 
and  such  payment  is  made  for  any  purpose  which,  if  the 
money  was  expended  by  the  candidate,  would  work  a  for- 
feiture of  the  office  to  which  he  has  been  elected,  such 
payment  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  made  by  such 
candidate,  and  he  shall  forfeit  any  office  to  which  he  may 
have  been  elected  at  the  election  in  reference  to  which 
such  payment  was  made  by  or  on  behalf  of  such  com- 
mittee. ' '  The  act  is  modified,  however,  by  the  provision 
that  in  a  case  coming  before  a  court  under  the  act  where 
it  appears  from  the  evidence  that  the  offense  complained 
of  was  not  committed  by  the  candidate,  or  with  his 
knowledge,  or  consent,  or  was  committed  without  his 
sanction  or  connivance,  and  that  all  reasonable  means 
were  taken  by  the  candidate  or  for  him,  or  that  the  of- 
fenses complained  of  were  trivial,  unimportant  or  limited 
in  character,  and  that  in  all  respects  his  candidacy  and 
election  were  free  from  all  offensive  or  illegal  acts,  or 
that  any  act  or  omission  of  any  candidate  complained  of 
arose  from  accidental  miscalculation  or  from  some  other 
reasonable  cause  of  a  similar  nature  and  not  from  lack 
of  good  faith,  and  it  seems  to  the  court  under  the  circum- 
stances to  be  unjust  that  the  candidate  shall  forfeit  his 
nomination,  position  or  office,  then  the  nomination  or 


100  APPLIED  HISTORY 

election  may  not  be  declared  void  nor  the  candidate  re- 
moved from  nor  deprived  of  his  nomination,  position,  or 
office.  The  act  further  provides  that  if  any  candidate 
wishes  to  avoid  the  responsibility  of  a  payment  made  for 
him  by  others  of  which  he  has  knowledge,  he  must  ' '  set 
forth  such  payment  and  disclaim  responsibility  there- 
for."219 

PENALTIES  FOR  VIOLATION  OF  ELECTION  LAWS 

Penalties  imposed  for  the  violation  of  election  laws 
vary  with  the  nature  of  the  offense  and  with  the  States 
where  the  act  is  committed.  Fines,  imprisonment  in  jail 
or  penitentiary,  loss  of  charter  by  corporations  or  right 
to  do  business  in  the  State,  disfranchisement,  voiding  of 
the  election,  and  disqualification  for  holding  office  are  the 
various  penalties  prescribed  in  cases  of  violation. 

Offenders  against  the  English  election  laws  are  heard 
before  two  judges  who  are  annually  selected  by  the  other 
judges.  The  judges  report  their  findings  to  the  House  of 
Commons  —  but  their  findings  are  never  challenged  by 
the  House.  According  to  English  legislation  every  per- 
son guilty  of  a  corrupt  practice  —  that  is,  bribery,  treat- 
ing, undue  influence,  knowingly  making  a  false  statement 
in  the  return  of  election  expenses,  or  personation  —  may 
be  fined,  imprisoned,  and  deprived  of  his  political  rights 
for  a  period  of  seven  years.  In  addition,  if  a  candidate 
is  guilty  of  such  corrupt  practice,  or  if  bribery  or  per- 
sonation has  been  committed  with  his  knowledge  and 
consent,  the  election  of  the  candidate  is  voided  and  he 
may  never  be  elected  to  Parliament  by  that  constituency. 
Furthermore,  if  the  election  court  finds  that  a  corrupt 
practice  has  been  committed  by  his  agents,  the  candi- 
date's election  is  voided  and  he  may  not  be  elected  from 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  101 

that  constituency  for  a  period'  of  seven  years.  Relief, 
however,  may  be  given  in  the  case  of  treating  or  undue 
influence  committed  by  an  agent,  other  than  the  candi- 
date's election  agent,  if  of  a  trivial  nature,  and  if  the 
candidate  and  his  election  agent  did  not  connive  at  it  but 
took  all  reasonable  means  to  prevent  the  commission  of 
such  act.  For  illegal  practices  the  penalties  are  similar, 
but  not  so  severe ;  and  relief  may  be  secured  more  readily 
—  discretion  being  left,  to  a  great  extent,  with  the 
court.220 

The  Florida  primary  act  provides,  as  a  penalty  for 
bribery,  disfranchisement  of  the  briber  for  a  term  not  to 
exceed  ten  years  and  not  less  than  a  year's  imprison- 
ment. For  a  second  offense  the  penalty  is  disfranchise- 
ment for  life  as  to  primary  elections ;  and  the  offender 
may  also  be  sentenced  to  serve  not  more  than  five  years 
in  the  penitentiary.221 

Indiana  legislation  provides  that  a  person  guilty  of 
bribery  may  be  fined,  deprived  of  his  political  rights 
for  any  determinate  period,  and,  if  elected  to  office,  his 
election  is  voided.222  In  accordance  with  the  Minnesota 
law  a  corporation  guilty  of  making  political  contributions 
may  be  fined  not  to  exceed  $10,000,  and  if  a  domestic 
concern  it  may  be  deprived  of  its  charter.  If  the  offender 
is  a  foreign  corporation,  it  may,  in  addition  to  the  fine,  be 
deprived  of  its  right  to  do  business  in  the  State.  The 
agent  of  the  corporation  making  the  payment  may  be 
fined  from  $100  to  $5,000,  or  sentenced  to  serve  from  one 
to  five  years  in  the  penitentiary,  or  both.  Violation  of 
the  act  by  an  officer  of  the  corporation  is  considered 
prima  facie  evidence  of  violation  by  the  corporation.223 
Violation  of  the  New  Jersey  corrupt  practices  act  is  made 
a  misdemeanor  and  punished  as  such.     In  case  of  an 


102  APPLIED  HISTORY 

elected  candidate  being  found  guilty  his  election  is  also 
voided.  This  includes  the  failure  on  the  part  of  a  candi- 
date to  file  a  statement  of  his  election  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures.224 The  Wisconsin  act  provides  that  any 
person  violating  its  provisions  may  upon  conviction  be 
punished  by  a  jail  sentence  of  from  one  month  to  one 
year,  by  a  penitentiary  sentence  of  from  one  to  three 
years,  or  by  a  fine  of  from  $25  to  $1,000,  or  by  both  a  fine 
and  imprisonment.  The  conviction  of  a  candidate  elected 
to  office  voids  his  election.225 


IV 

SUGGESTIONS  FOR  REFORM  IN  THE  CORRUPT 
PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  OF  IOWA 

A  comparison  of  the  legislation  in  Iowa  on  corrupt  prac- 
tices with  the  provisions  of  the  more  advanced  State 
laws  directed  against  such  offenses  reveals  the  fact  that 
the  Iowa  provisions  are  incomplete  and  fragmentary. 

RE-DEFINITION  OF  CORRUPT  PRACTICES 

It  is  apparent  that  a  re-definition  of  the  grosser  forms 
of  election  offenses  would  be  desirable  in  this  State.  The 
English  definitions,  which  are  quite  comprehensive  and 
which  have  served  as  models  for  other  States,  could  safe- 
ly be  followed  in  Iowa.  Treating  ought  to  be  prohibited 
entirely  in  connection  with  political  campaigns.  The  pre- 
vention of  undue  influence  through  any  sort  of  election- 
eering, distribution  of  political  literature,  distribution  or 
wearing  of  political  insignia  on  primary  or  election  day 
would  also  seem  advisable.  In  fact  it  would  seem  desir- 
able to  prohibit  all  forms  of  political  activity  on  the  part 
of  candidates  or  their  agents  after  the  Saturday  night 
prior  to  the  Monday  or  Tuesday  on  which  the  election  is 
held.  Furthermore,  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why 
a  candidate  or  party  should  be  permitted  to  turn  a  polit- 
ical campaign  into  a  continuous  vaudeville  performance 
and  through  numerous  bands,  elaborate  posters,  display 
of  banners,  buttons,  and  other  political  marks  of  distinc- 
tion seek  to  influence  voters  to  cast  their  ballots  for  the 

103 


104  APPLIED  HISTORY 

candidates  or  party  making  the  most  noise  or  the  biggest 
show. 

RESPONSIBILITY   IN   HANDLING   CAMPAIGN   FUNDS 

Again,  Iowa  legislation  does  not  now  require  that 
political  funds  pass  through  the  hands  of  any  certain 
responsible  person  or  committee.  It  is  true  that  the  law 
requires  the  candidate  to  include  in  his  filed  statement 
the  sums  he  knows  to  have  been  expended  by  others  in 
his  behalf ;  but  this  too  often  means  simply  that  the  candi- 
date takes  care  to  be  ignorant  of  any  such  payments  by 
others,  or  that  those  making  expenditures  for  him  are 
very  careful  to  keep  him  in  ignorance  of  such  expend- 
itures on  their  part.  Nor  is  there  any  restriction  in  the 
Iowa  law  as  to  the  amount  that  may  be  received  from 
individuals  during  the  whole  campaign  or  prior  to  the 
campaign. 

PARTY  ASSESSMENTS 

Regarding  party  assessments  the  only  requirement  is 
that  they  be  included  in  the  candidate 's  statement.  With 
our  present  theory  of  party  support  this  is  a  difficult 
point  on  which  to  legislate.  It  is  true  that  in  some  States 
the  law  provides  that  party  assessments  shall  be  volun- 
tary; but  such  provisions  mean  very  little  in  practice. 
Aside  from  being  wrong  in  principle,  the  chief  objection 
to  the  party  assessments  in  Iowa  is  that  locally  the  con- 
tribution too  often  goes  to  the  support  and  maintenance 
of  a  ''county  courthouse  gang".  That  all  non-elective 
officers  and  employees  ought  to  be  protected  from  assess- 
ments by  prohibitive  laws  is  a  proposition  that  will  hard- 
ly be  questioned. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  105 

LIMITATIONS  ON  EXPENDITURES:    CONVEYANCE   OF  VOTERS 

There  is  no  provision  in  the  Iowa  statutes  regarding 
the  total  amount  which  the  party  or  candidate  may  ex- 
pend. Nor  is  there  any  attempt  to  restrict  to  legitimate 
educative  purposes  the  money  used  by  candidates  or 
parties.  One  of  the  chief  expenditures  in  an  Iowa  cam- 
paign is  for  transportation  of  voters  to  the  polls.  Even 
in  our  school  elections  —  which  in  many  places  have  de- 
generated into  squabbles  among  banks  for  the  control  of 
school  funds  —  voters  are  besieged  by  political  workers 
urging  them  to  make  use  of  their  conveyances.  It  would 
seem  advisable  to  eliminate  this  method  of  influencing 
voters  by  prohibiting  the  transportation  of  voters  to  or 
from  the  polls  or  any  part  of  the  way.  A  citizen  who 
does  not  take  enough  interest  in  his  right  of  franchise  to 
walk  to  the  polls  or  furnish  or  pay  for  his  own  convey- 
ance would  hardly  seem  to  be  a  desirable  factor  in  the 
election.  If  a  voter  is  infirm,  or  lives  at  a  distance  and  is 
too  poor  to  secure  transportation,  it  might  be  well  to 
provide  some  method  of  State  aid  similar  to  that  found 
in  New  Jersey.220 

STATEMENTS  OF  CONTRIBUTIONS  AND  EXPENDITURES 

While  the  Iowa  law  requires  that  candidates  and  po- 
litical committees  file  statements  of  political  contribu- 
tions and  expenditures,  yet  an  examination  into  the 
manner  in  which  the  law  is  observed,  and  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  law  even  if  observed,  indicates  the  need 
of  amending  these  provisions.  In  the  first  place  state- 
ments ought  to  be  filed  before  as  well  as  after  primaries 
and  elections.  Again,  the  law  merely  requires  the  filing 
of  the  statements  with  the  proper  officials  without  making- 
it  anybody's  business  to  see  that  such  information  is 


106  APPLIED  HISTORY 

really  filed  or  that  the  statements  when  filed  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  law.  When  received  the  statements 
are  now  filed  away,  there  being  no  provision  for  publicity 
through  newspapers  or  otherwise.  It  is  doubtful  if  the 
majority  of  the  statements  filed  are  ever  opened  and 
examined.  The  filed  reports  are,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
often  incomplete  as  to  the  information  required.  The 
date  of  the  contribution  or  expenditure  is  often  omitted ; 
so  also  are  the  names  of  the  donor  or  recipient  in  case  of 
an  expenditure.  The  contributions  and  expenditures  are 
not  always  given  in  detail.  In  fact,  the  space  for  con- 
tributions is  often  left  blank,  as  is  sometimes  also  the 
space  for  expenditures  —  the  inference  being  that  there 
were  no  contributions  or  expenditures.227  There  is  no 
provision  for  vouchers  for  expenditures  or  other  method 
of  auditing.  The  payment  of  claims  ought  to  be  per- 
mitted only  within  a  certain  time. 

CONTEOL  OF  VOLUNTEEE  OEGANIZATIONS 

Another  important  problem  in  corrupt  practices  legis- 
lation is  the  control  of  the  political  activities  of  volunteer 
organizations.  It  would  seem  that  the  public  is  at  least 
entitled  to  know  how  much  various  organizations,  which 
are  non-partisan  and  throw  their  influence  to  the  party 
or  candidates,  who  through  principle  or  intimidation  are 
favorable  to  the  purposes  of  such  organizations,  spend  in 
the  primaries  and  elections  and  for  what  purpose  such 
expenditures  are  made.228 

An  influence  of  a  similar  character,  but  less  tangible 
and  therefore  more  dangerous  and  more  difficult  to  reach 
through  legislation,  is  the  activity  of  the  local  boss  and 
his  co-workers  who  are  in  the  political  game  for  love  of 
the  excitement  or  personal  interest  or,  as  is  more  often 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  107 

the  case,  as  representatives  of  some  interest  or  allied 
interests  —  the  so-called  ''invisible  government"  desir- 
ing to  control  politics.  As  to  all  such  who  seek  to  secure 
the  nomination  and  election  of  men  not  necessarily  cor- 
rupt but  rather  in  fact  men  who  through  birth,  environ- 
ment, or  economic  interest  are  "acceptable"  to  special 
interests,  no  corrupt  practices  act  seems  thus  far  to  have 
been  well  enough  drawn  or  enforced  to  prevent  their 
activities.229  Indeed,  along  this  line  public  opinion 
rather  than  formal  legislation  must  be  relied  upon. 
Until  men  see  that  money  paid  for  "political  work"  is  as 
a  rule  bribery  in  a  disguised  form,  the  eradication  of 
such  conditions  and  the  prevention  of  the  influence  of 
such  men  in  our  politics  through  legislation  seems  quite 
impossible. 

STATE  AID  TO  POLITICAL  CAMPAIGNS  :  OFFICIAL  INFORMATION 

Iowa  has  no  provision  for  State  aid  to  political  cam- 
paigns. The  most  essential  thing  for  a  candidate 
desirous  of  serving  the  public  as  an  officeholder  is  that 
he  may  have  some  means  of  placing  before  the  voters  a 
statement  of  the  principles  he  favors  and  of  his  qualifica- 
tions for  the  office.  Moreover,  it  is  still  more  important 
that  the  voters  be  furnished  with  at  least  a  minimum  of 
reliable  information  concerning  the  multitude  of  candi- 
dates whose  names  appear  on  our  long  ballots.  It  is 
possible  that  the  most  convenient  and  economical  method 
would  be  to  have  the  State  take  charge  of  such  publicity 
through  a  system  of  publishing  and  distributing  cam- 
paign books  like  that  in  force  in  Wisconsin  or  Oregon. 
Considering  the  purpose  and  character  of  such  service 
there  appears  to  be  no  good  reason  why  the  government 
should  not  perform  it  without  charge.    As  to  a  system  of 


108  APPLIED  HISTORY 

direct  financial  aid  to  parties  this  would  seem  even  more 
difficult.  An  objection  to  the  Colorado  plan  —  which  af- 
forded financial  support  according  to  party  vote,  with 
prohibition  of  outside  contributions  except  by  candidates 
—  is  that  such  a  system  would  tend  to  maintain  the 
dominant  party  in  power  and  discourage  the  growth  of 
minor  parties  or  the  development  of  new  parties. 

A  further  aid  to  political  parties  that  would  seem 
altogether  proper  is  some  provision  for  the  opening  of 
public  buildings,  such  as  school  houses  and  auditoriums 
of  State-supported  colleges  and  universities,  for  political 
meetings  freely  and  without  charge. 

RESTRICTIONS  ON   PUBLICATIONS 

Iowa  has  no  legislation  regulating  the  political  activ- 
ity of  newspapers  and  other  publications,  or  the  publi- 
cation and  distribution  of  political  dodgers  of  various 
sorts.  That  this  is  an  essential  feature  of  a  compre- 
hensive and  adequate  corrupt  practices  act  can  not  be 
questioned.  Indeed,  it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  some  of 
the  more  influential  dailies  as  well  as  some  of  the  rural 
weeklies  have  been  suspected  of  operating  under  corrupt 
influences  in  matters  political.  It  must  also  be  admitted 
that  paid  political  matter  appears  in  the  columns  of  some 
papers  as  news  or  as  editorials  with  no  indication  that 
such  is  their  real  character.  The  campaign  "roorback" 
is  of  as  recent  appearance  as  the  1912  spring  primaries. 
Nor  is  the  real  ownership  of  our  papers  generally  known. 
For  regulation  along  these  lines  it  would  seem  that  the 
Minnesota  act  would  be  a  good  model,  especially  for  pro- 
visions regarding  the  labeling  of  paid  political  matter 
and  the  giving  of  official  notice  of  ownership  of  papers 
publishing  political  matter.    Other  provisions  of  the  Min- 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  109 

nesota  act  which  might  well  be  written  into  the  Iowa 
statutes  are  those  which  relate  to  the  (1)  soliciting  or 
receiving  of  pay  for  the  political  influence  of  a  publica- 
tion except  as  paid  advertising,  (2)  providing  that  all 
campaign  literature  bear  the  name  and  address  of  the 
author,  of  the  candidate  in  whose  behalf  it  is  published, 
and  of  any  other  person  or  committee  responsible  for  the 
publishing  of  the  literature,  and  (3)  prohibiting  anyone 
from  publishing  false  statements  intended  to  influence 
voters  regarding  candidates  or  measures  to  be  voted 
upon.230  The  Oregon  provision  directed  against  libelous 
campaign  literature  is,  perhaps,  stronger  than  that  of 
Minnesota.231 

METHODS  OF  PEOCEDUEE 

As  already  indicated  the  weakness  in  corrupt  prac- 
tices prevention  has  been  in  the  method  of  procedure. 
Iowa  legislation  provides  no  special  procedure  for  hand- 
ling corrupt  practices  offenses.  The  problem  is  to  devise 
some  method  which  will  force  the  public  prosecutor  to  act 
or  some  method  for  independent  action  on  the  part  of  the 
people  who  desire  to  enforce  the  law  and  at  the  same  time 
prevent  election  contests  on  flimsy  or  false  grounds.  It 
would  seem  that  the  Wisconsin  provision  is  the  best  plan 
thus  far  provided  by  any  State.232 

PENALTIES 

Another  problem  for  Iowa  legislation  is  the  nature  of 
the  penalties  for  the  violation  of  corrupt  practices  pro- 
visions. It  is  doubtful  whether  the  system  of  fines  and 
imprisonment  alone  is  effective.  Moreover,  where  such 
penalties  are  imposed  by  the  Iowa  laws  their  application 
seems  to  be  a  matter  of  guesswork.     Thus,  for  undue 


110  APPLIED  HISTORY 

influence  exercised  by  employers  the  penalty  is  a  fine  of 
from  $5  to  $100.  As  suggested  above,  this  penalty  has 
not  noticeably  deterred  large  employers  from  attempts 
to  influence  their  employees.  It  would  seem  that  in  mat- 
ters of  this  sort  some  attempt  should  be  made  to  fit  the 
penalty  to  the  nature  of  the  offense.  Corporations,  either 
foreign  or  domestic,  when  guilty  of  violating  the  election 
laws  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  cany  on  business  within 
the  State.  Moreover,  in  addition  to  penalties  in  the  form 
of  fines  and  imprisonment,  violation  of  corrupt  practices 
provisions  by  a  candidate  or  his  agents  ought  to  void  the 
election.  In  addition  it  would  seem  that  any  person 
guilty  of  such  violation  should  be  deprived  of  his  political 
rights,  at  least  for  a  limited  period.  The  provisions  for 
punishing  violators  of  corrupt  practices  acts  contained 
in  the  English  law  and  in  the  recent  State  laws  of  Oregon, 
Minnesota,  or  Wisconsin  seem  altogether  unobjection- 
able. 

SUMMARY 

Thus  it  appears  from  an  historical  analysis  of  corrupt 
practices  legislation  in  Iowa  and  from  a  comparative 
study  of  legislation  and  administrative  methods  in  other 
jurisdictions  that  this  State  is  in  need  of  a  comprehensive 
corrupt  practices  act  which  will  define  more  fully  both 
corrupt  practices  and  illegal  practices,  provide  more  ade- 
quate provisions  for  penalties  and  procedure,  establish  a 
system  of  State  aid  in  campaigns,  and  above  all  aim  at 
preventative  methods  and  measures. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES 


in 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES 

i  Quoted  from  a  pamphlet  containing  Becommendations  by  the  President, 
five  Governors,  and  an  Attorney  General  on  Corrupt  Practices  in  Elections 
sent  out  by  Bobert  Luce,  p.  4. 

2  Chicago  Eecord-Eerald,  25th  Year,  No.  113,  September  18,  1905. 

The  gradual  demoralization  of  the  whole  electorate  by  means  of  bribery 
is  strikingly  described  by  Mr.  George  Kennan  in  these  words: 

"When  Mr.  Addicks'  agents  first  began  to  buy  votes  in  southern  Dela- 
ware, they  could  '  get '  only  a  part  of  the  negroes,  and  a  few  men  from  the 
poorest  class  of  whites;  but  the  corrupting  influence  of  money,  used  boldly 
and  with  impunity  throughout  a  long  series  of  years,  finally  had  its  effect 
upon  men  of  a  higher  type  —  men  who  could  not  plead  poverty  as  an  excuse 
for  their  acts.  Well-to-do  farmers  in  Sussex  County,  who  own  their  farms 
and  have  money  in  the  bank,  now  sell  their  votes  regularly  every  other  year; 
and  as  for  the  colored  population,  which  polls  in  the  two  lower  counties  a 
vote  of  about  five  thousand,  it  has  been  corrupted  en  masse.  Many  in- 
formants in  Kent  and  Sussex  told  me  that  in  the  circle  of  their  personal 
acquaintance  they  did  not  know  a  single  negro  who  'voted  his  sentiments'. 
Every  man  of  them  sold  his  vote  for  what  it  would  bring. ' ' —  The  Outlook, 
Vol.  LXXIII,  No.  8,  p.  432. 

s  Christie 's  The  Ballot  and  Corruption  and  Expenditure  at  Elections, 
p.  91. 

4  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  I,  pp.  527-529.  This  act  was 
copied  from  the  laws  of  New  York,  Ohio,  and  Vermont. 

5  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  280. 

s  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  563. 

7  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  645. 

8Shambaugh's  Documentary  Material  Belating  to  the  History  of  Iowa*, 
Vol.  I,  p.  76. 

sShambaugh's  Documentary  Material  Belating  to  the  History  of  Iowa, 
Vol.  II,  p.  284. 

io  Shambaugh 's  Documentary  Material  Belating  to  the  History  of  Iowa*, 
Vol.  I,  p.  78. 

8  113 


114  APPLIED  HISTORY 

11  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  1836-1838,  pp.  408,  409. 

12  Shambaugh 's  Documentary  Material  Relating  to  the  History  of  Iowa, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  107,  112,  113. 

is  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Iowa,  1838-1839,  pp.  185-196.  Sections  11 
and  12  of  this  act  relate  to  corrupt  practices. 

i-t  Revised  Statutes  of  the  Territory  of  Iowa,  1842-1843,  pp.  248,  249. 

is  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Iowa  (Extra  Session),  1840,  pp.  20,  21. 

i°  Quoted  from  the  Iowa  Capital  Reporter  in  the  Bloomington  Herald 
(New  Series),  Vol.  I,  No.  27,  November  20,  1846. 

it  The  Bloomington  Herald  (New  Series),  Vol.  I,  No.  27,  November  20, 
1846. 

is  Quoted  from  the  Iowa  Capital  Reporter  in  the  Bloomington  Herald 
(New  Series),  Vol.  I,  No.  28,  November  27,  1846. 

is  The  Bloomington  Herald  (New  Series),  Vol.  I,  No.  28,  November  27, 
1846. 

20  The  Iowa  Standard  (New  Series),  Vol.  II,  No.  5,  August  11,  1847. 

2i  Congressional  Globe,  1st  Session,  31st  Congress,  Part  II,  pp.  1292- 
1296. 

This  case  is  of  special  interest  in  that  it  brought  to  light  a  letter  showing 
that  pressure  in  the  nature  of  religious  influence  was  used  to  induce  the 
Morn  jn  voters  to  cast  their  ballots  for  the  "Whig  candidate.  A  part  of  the 
letter  is  quoted  in  a  speech  by  Mr.  Leffler. 

"Burlington,   (Iowa,)  July  8,  1850   [1848]. 
Dear  Friends  and  Brethren: 

It  has  seemed  good  unto  me,  your  brother  and  companion  in  tribulation 
and  counsellor  in  the  church  of  God,  to  advise  and  request  you  to  cast  your 
votes  at  the  ensuing  election  in  favor  of  the  Whig  candidates  for  office. 
This  letter  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  Colonel  F.  H.  Warren,  who  will  give 
you,  or  cause  the  same  to  be  done,  all  necessary  information  how  and  where 
to  act.     .    .    . 

Your  brother  in  Christ, 

Orson  Hyde." 

—  Congressional  Globe,  1st  Session,  31st  Congress,  Appendix,  pp.  818-823. 

This  incident  is  discussed  in  Pelzer's  The  History  and  Principles  of  the 
Democratic  Party  of  Iowa  in  The  Iowa  Journal  of  History  and  Politics, 
Vol.  VI,  pp.  181-184. 

22  Fairall  's  Manual  of  Iowa  Politics,  Vol.  I,  p.  24. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  115 

23  Ethyl  E.  Martin's  A  Bribery  Episode  in  the  First  Election  of  United 
States  Senators  in  Iowa  in  The  Ioica  Journal  of  History  and  Politics,  Vol. 
VII,  pp.  483-502. 

In  this  connection  mention  may  be  made  of  the  fact  that  the  first  re- 
corded instance  of  legislative  bribery  and  bribery  of  a  voter  in  Iowa 
occurred  while  Iowa  was  a  part  of  the  original  Territory  of  Wisconsin.  This 
was  the  case  of  Alexander  W.  McGregor,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives from  the  county  of  Dubuque.  McGregor  seems  to  have  promised 
John  Wilson  that  he  would  secure  for  him  a  franchise  for  a  ferry  privilege 
in  return  for  a  sum  of  money  and  Wilson's  influence  to  secure  his  election. 
—  See  Parish's  The  Bribery  of  Alexander  W.  McGregor  in  The  lorva  Journal 
of  History  and  Politics,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  384-398. 

24  Clark's  History  of  Senatorial  Elections  in  Ioiva,  Chapter  I. 

25  Laics  of  Iowa.  1849,  pp.  132-135. 

26  Code  of  1851,  pp.  371-373. 

27  Revision  of  1860,  pp.  742-744. 

28  Code  of  1873,  pp.  622-624. 

29  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1858,  pp.  223,  303,  383,  631, 
642.  657,  750,  761. 

30  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1858,  pp.  580,  581,  600. 

3i  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1868,  pp.  106,  112,  204. 

32  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1872,  p.  365. 

33  Journal  of  the  Senate.  1876,  p.  120. 

34  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1878,  pp.  52,  230,  239. 

35  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1878,  pp.  183,  187,  287. 

36  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1878,  pp.  68,  537. 

37  Laws  of  Iowa.  1880,  p.  79. 

38  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1880,  pp.  60,  372. 

39  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1880,  pp.  60,  270. 

■*o  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1880,  pp.  400,  429. 
4i  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1884,  pp.  399,  566. 

42  Shambaugh's  Messages  and  Proclamations  of  the  Governors  of  Iowa, 
Vol.  VI,  p.  8. 

43  Laws  of  Iowa,  1886,  p.  192. 


116  APPLIED  HISTORY 

44  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1886,  pp.  238,  343,  719. 

■*•"•  Shambaugh  's  Messages  and  Proclamations  of  the  Governors  of  Iowa, 
Vol.  VI,  p.  88. 

46  Journal  of  the  Rouse  of  Representatives,  1888,  pp.  144,  487,  515,  516. 

*~  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1888,  pp.  516,  518,  964. 

48  Shambaugh 's  Messages  and  Proclamations  of  the  Governors  of  Iowa, 
Vol.  VI,  pp.  275,  276. 

49  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1890,  pp.  86,  91,  92 ;  also  Journal  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  1890,  pp.  121,  124,  130. 

so  Shambaugh 's  Messages  and  Proclamations  of  the  Governors  of  Iowa, 
Vol.  VI,  pp.  336,  337. 

si  Journal  of  the  Bouse  of  Representatives,  1892,  pp.  78,  79,  84,  106,  107, 
108,  120,  145,  172,  182,  218,  223,  249,  269,  270,  271,  279,  297,  298,  309,  333, 
419;  also  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1892,  pp.  81,  132,  140,  182,  183,  192,  196, 
216,  217,  242,  287,  315. 

52  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  pp.  47-62. 

53  Shambaugh 's  Messages  and  Proclamations  of  the  Governors  of  Iotva, 
Vol.  VI,  p.  276. 

54  The  report  of  the  Des  Moines  division  of  the  Amalgamated  Association 
of  Street  and  Electric  Kaihvay  Employees,  printed  in  the  Register  and 
Leader,  Vol.  LXIII,  July  31,  1912,  in  showing  the  improved  conditions  of 
the  street  car  workers  states  that  "under  the  old  order  of  things  .... 
we  were  expected  to  carry  out  the  wishes  of  the  Company  on  matters 
political. ' ' 

ss  Laws  of  Iotva,  1892,  p.  58. 

56  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1892,  pp.  149,  253,  621. 

57  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1892,  p.  575. 

58  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1894,  pp.  84,  163,  275. 

59  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1894,  pp.  176,  293,  669. 
eo  Laws  of  Iowa,  1894,  p.  62. 

oi  Code  of  1897,  pp.  1935-1937. 
02  Code  of  1851,  pp.  371-373. 

63  Laws  of  Iowa,  1894,  p.  62. 

64  Code  of  1897,  pp.  419-421. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  117 

65  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  pp.  58-60. 

66  Code  of  1897,  p.  861. 

67  Code  of  1897,  p.  1948. 

68  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1898,  p.  579. 
«9  Laws  of  Iowa,  1898,  p.  70. 

"Jo  Bouse  File,  No.  251,  Twenty-ninth  General  Assembly  (1902). 
7i  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1902,  p.  1248. 

72  Ioica  Documents,  1904,  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  pp.  15,  16. 

73  Laws  of  Iowa,  1904,  p.  36. 

7*  Bowse  File,  No.  30,  Thirtieth  General  Assembly   (1904);   Journal  of 
the  House,  1904,  pp.  104,  313. 

75  House  File,  No.  84,  Thirtieth  General  Assembly   (1904);   Journal  of 
the  House,  1904,  pp.  121,  287. 

76  House  File,  No.  253,  Thirtieth  General  Assembly  (1904);  Journal  of 
the  House,  1904,  pp.  278,  1085. 

77  House  File,  No.  97,  Thirtieth  General  Assembly   (1904);  Journal  of 
the  House,  1904,  pp.  129,  322. 

78  House  File,  No.  85,  Thirty-first  General  Assembly  (1906)  ;  Journal  of 
the  House,  1906,  pp.  162,  1088,  1166,  1167. 

is  House  File,  No.  162,  Thirty-first  General  Assembly  (1906). 

so  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  p.  948. 

si  House  File,  No.  163,  Thirty-first  General  Assembly  (1906). 

82  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  398,  399. 

83  Ioiva  Documents,  1906,  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  p.  13. 

84  Register  and  Leader   (Des  Moines),  Vol.  LVII,  No.  272,  March   31, 
1907. 

ss  Register  and  Leader  (Des  Moines),  Vol.  LVII,  No.  282,  April  10,  1907. 
so  Iowa  Official  Register,  1907-1908,  p.  389. 
87  Iowa  Official  Register,  1907-1908,  p.  393. 
ss  Iowa  Documents,  1907,  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  pp.  23,  24. 

so  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1907,  pp.  142,  217,  229,  230,  269,  270,  589,  719, 
720,  874,  875. 


118  APPLIED  HISTORY 

so  Senate  File,  No.  38,  Thirty-second  General  Assembly  (1907);  also 
Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  76,  77. 

si  Journal  of  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  1907,  pp.  300,  314,  476,  501, 
540,  597,  658,  659,  660. 

92  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  76,  77. 

93  Iowa  Documents,  1907,  Vol.  I,  No.  1,  p.  24. 

94  House  File,  No.  10,  Thirty-second  General  Assembly  (1907);  Journal 
of  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  1907,  p.  110. 

95  House  File,  No.  477,  Thirty-second  General  Assembly  (1907);  Journal 
of  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  1907,  pp.  1198-1200,  1243,  1244,  1269, 
1270,  1370,  1461-1463. 

96  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1907,  pp.  1401. 

97  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  50,  51. 

98  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  63,  64. 

Senator  J.  J.  Crossley  was,  perhaps,  the  most  active  member  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  securing  the  passage  of  this  legislation.  In  1902  he 
introduced  a  primary  bill,  Senate  File,  No.  2;  in  1904,  Senate  File,  No.  3; 
in  1906,  Senate  File,  No.  2;  and  in  1907,  Senate  File,  No.  3.  As  a  member 
of  the  Committee  on  Elections  he  had  much  to  do  with  the  shaping  of  the 
bill  finally  enacted  into  law.  In  an  article  on  The  Begulation  of  Primary 
Elections  by  Law  in  The  Iowa  Journal  of  History  and  Politics,  Vol.  I,  1903, 
pp.  165-192,  Senator  Crossley  reviews  the  evolution  of  the  primary  method 
of  nominating  candidates. 

99  Hamilton's  The  Dethronement  of  the  City  Boss,  p.  93. 

ioo  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  41,  42,  44. 

ioi  House  File,  No.  265,  Thirty-second  General  Assembly  (1907);  Jour- 
nal of  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  1907,  pp.  341,  906. 

102  House  File,  No.  359,  Thirty-second  General  Assembly  (1907). 

103  Journal  of  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  1907,  p.  594. 

10*  House  File,  No.  284,  Thirty-third  General  Assembly  (1909);  Journal 
of  the  House  of  Bepresentatives,  1909,  pp.  475,  1038,  1342. 

ioo  Senate  File,  No.  268,  Thirty-third  General  Assembly  (1909)  ;  Journal 
of  the  Senate,  1909,  pp.  546,  652,  938,  939. 

ioo  Laws  of  Iowa,  1911,  p.  39. 

io7  Senate  File,  No.  46,  Thirty-fourth  General  Assembly  (1911)  ;  Journal 
of  the  Senate,  1911,  p.  1057. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  119 

108  House  File,  No.  95,  Thirty-fourth  General  Assembly  (1911)  ;  Journal 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1911,  p.  476. 

109  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  I,  p.  529. 
no  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  563. 
in  Laws  of  Iowa,  1849,  p.  133. 

us  Code  of  1851,  p.  371. 

ii3  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  42. 

ii4  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  63,  64. 

us  Laws  of  Iowa,  1894,  p.  62. 

lie  Laws  of  Iowa,  1886,  p.  192. 

n7  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  60. 

us  Kelso  vs.  Wright,  110  Iowa  560. 

us  Carrothers  vs.  Russel,  53  Iowa  346. 

120  in  the  Iowa  elections  of  1910  the  railroad  interests  were  desirous  of 
defeating  one  of  the  Republican  candidates  for  Railroad  Commissioner. 
The  following  is  the  form  of  a  sample  ballot  distributed  by  the  railroads  to 
their  employees: 


For  Railroad  Commissioner  vote  for  frw 

o: 

13 

David  J.  Palmer 

13 

James  H.  Wilson 

To 

vote  place 

X  in 

[X]  before  each  name 

as 

above. 

121  Pelzer's  The  History  and  Principles  of  the  Democratic  Party  of  Iowa 
in  The  Iowa  Journal  of  History  and  Politics,  Vol.  VI,  p.  182. 

122  Laivs  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  I,  p.  529. 

123  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  563. 

124  Laws  of  Iowa,  1849,  p.  133. 

125  Code  of  1851,  pp.  371,  372. 

126  Register  and  Leader  (Des  Moines),  March,  1912. 

127  Laws  of  Iowa,  1886,  p.  192. 

128  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  pp.  59,  60. 

129  Code  of  1897,  pp.  419,  421,  1936,  1937. 


120  APPLIED  HISTORY 

130  Register  and  Leader  (Des  Moines),  Vol.  LXII,  No.  352,  June  18, 
1912. 

131  Laws  of  Iowa,  1894,  p.  G2. 

132  Laws  of  Iowa,  1886,  p.  193. 

133  Laws  of  Iowa,  1904,  p.  36. 

134  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  63. 

135  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  41,  42. 

136  Quoted  from  Jones's  Headings  on  Parties  and  Elections,  pp.  261,  262. 

137  Laws  of  Iowa,  1898,  p.  70. 

138  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  44. 

is*  Register  and  Leader  (Des  Moines),  Vol.  LXI,  No.  130,  November  8, 
1910;  The  Marshalltown  Times-Republican,  Vol.  XXXVI,  No.  263,  Novem- 
ber 8,  1910,  and  No.  264,  November  8,  1910. 

i4o  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  47. 

i4i  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  58. 

142  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  563. 

143  Laws  of  Ioica,  1880,  p.  79. 

144  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  51. 

145  Laws  of  the  Territory  of  Iowa,  183S-1839,  pp.  166,  188,  189. 

146  Laics  of  Iowa,  1849,  p.  133. 

147  Code  of  1851,  pp.  371-373. 

148  State  vs.  Douglas,  7  Iowa  413. 

149  State  vs.  Sheeley,  15  Iowa  404. 
iso  State  vs.  Minnick,  15  Iowa  123. 
i5i  State  vs.  Savre,  129  Iowa  122. 

152  Laws  of  Iowa,  1898,  pp.  59,  60. 

153  Laws  of  Iowa,  1904,  p.  36. 

154  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  63,  64. 

155  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  42. 

156  Code  of  1897,  p.  1949. 

157  Quoted  from  The  Marshalltown  Times-Republican. 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  121 

158  The  Marshalltown  Times-Republican  for  March  12,  1912. 

159  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  76,  77. 

160  Latvs  of  Iowa,  1898,  p.  70. 
i6i  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  44. 

162  Laws  of  Iowa,  1911,  p.  39. 

163  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  pp.  50,  51. 

164  Jelf'  s  The  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Prevention  Acts,  1883  and 
1895,  (London,  1905),  pp.  83-218. 

163  Powell's  The  Essentials  of  Self -Government,  (London,  1909),  p.  169. 

166  Registration  and  Election  Latvs,  Delaware,  (Dover,  1910),  p.  129. 

167  Election  Law,  Indiana,  (Indianapolis,  1910),  p.  111. 

168  General  Election  Laws,  Oklahoma,  1911,  p.  29. 

169  Election  Laws,  Montana,  (Helena,  1910),  p.  86. 

no  General  Election  Laws,  State  of  Washington,  (1910),  p.  61. 
i7i  Election  Laws,  Illinois,  (Springfield,  1910),  p.  60. 

172  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  26,  27. 

173  Election  Laws,  Missouri,  (Jefferson  City,  1911),  pp.  151,  152. 

174  Statutes  Relating  to  Elections,  Oregon,  (Salem,  1911),  p.  177. 

175  Statutes  Relating  to  Elections,  Oregon,  (Salem,  1911),  pp.  175,  176, 
179. 

176  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  p.  28. 

Another  purpose  of  the  provision  referred  to  is  to  prevent  the  useless 
waste  of  money,  since  badges,  buttons,  and  similar  decorations  are  hardly 
of  any  educational  value,  but  serve  merely  to  make  a  show  for  the  candi- 
date or  party. 

177  Jelf 's  The  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Prevention  Acts,  1883  and 
1895,  (London,  1905),  p.  210. 

i7S  Election  Law,  New  York,  (Albany,  1911),  pp.  194-204. 

179  Election  Law,  Indiana,  1909,  (Indianapolis,  1910),  p.  110. 

■lsq  Election  Laws,  Kentucky,  (1911),  p.  69. 


122  APPLIED  HISTORY 

181  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Begulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  p.  11. 

182  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  27,  28. 

183  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Begulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  p.  17. 

184 Election  Laws,  Kentucky,  (1911),  pp.  70,  71. 

185  A  pamphlet  containing  a  copy  of  all  measures  "Referred  to  the 
People  by  the  Legislative  Assembly",  Oregon,  (Salem,  1908),  p.  103. 

186  Statutes  Belating  to  Elections,  Oregon,  (Salem,  1911),  pp.  174,  175. 

187  Bevised  Statutes,  Penal  Code,  Arizona,  (1901),  p.  1190. 

188  Laws  of  Ohio,  1911,  p.  255. 

189  Begistration  and  Election  Laws,  Maryland,  (1911),  pp.  120-123. 

190  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Begulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  3,  4. 

i9i  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  29,  33. 

192  Amendments  to  Corrupt  Practices  Law,  Special  Session,  Wisconsin, 
(Madison,  1912),  p.  4. 

193  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  25,  33. 

19*  Supplement  to  An  Act  to  Begulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  8,  9. 

195  Code  Supplement  of  West  Virginia,  1909,  p.  22. 

196  Election  Laws,  "Wyoming,  (Sheridan,  1911),  pp.  74,  75. 

isi  Statutes  Belating  to  Elections,  Oregon,   (Salem,  1911),  pp.  163-169. 

198  General  Election  Laws,  Nebraska,   (Lincoln,  1911),  pp.  84-86. 

199  Laws  of  Maine,  1911,  p.  128. 

200  General  Laivs,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  23,  26,  29,  30. 

201  Acts  and  Besolves  of  Massachusetts,  1911,  p.  602. 

In  a  primary  a  candidate  may  expend  money  for  one  conveyance  to 
bring  voters  to  the  polls.  The  English  act  prohibits  hiring  of  vehicles,  but 
a  candidate  may  use  his  own  or  borrow  those  of  his  friends.    Naturally  this 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  123 

has  worked  out  directly  opposite  to  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  law 
in  that  the  well-to-do  are  well  supplied  while  the  poorer  candidates  have 
few  or  none.     The  effect  on  the  voters  may  easily  be  imagined. 

202  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Regulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  9,  10. 

203  Brooks's  Corruption  in  American  Politics  and  Life,  Ch.  VI.  This 
author  gives  a  good  discussion  of  campaign  contributions  and  the  publicity 
of  campaign  contributions  and  expenditures. 

204  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  30-36. 

205  Statutes  Relating  to  Elections,  Oregon,  (Salem,  1911),  pp.  170-174. 

206  Jelf's  The  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Prevention  Acts,  1883  and 
1895,  (London,  1905),  p.  134. 

207  Election  Law,  New  York,  (Albany,  1911),  p.  223. 

208  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Regulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  6-8. 

209  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  p.  30. 

210  Session  Laics  of  Colorado,  1909,  pp.  303-305.  This  act  provided  for 
the  paying  of  election  expenses  by  the  State  and  candidates  only.  Each 
party  was  to  receive  for  campaign  purposes  twenty-five  cents  for  each  vote 
cast  at  the  last  preceding  general  election  for  the  nominee  for  Governor  of 
that  political  party.  A  candidate  might  expend  forty  per  cent  of  the  first 
year's  salary,  or  if  paid  by  fees,  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  fees  collected 
during  the  preceding  year.  This  statute,  however,  has  been  declared  void  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Colorado. 

The  Minnesota  bill  as  first  introduced  provided  for  free  campaign  books; 
but  this  provision  was  eliminated  before  the  bill  became  a  law. 

2ii  Statutes  Relating  to  Elections,  Oregon,   (Salem,  1911),  pp.  163-169. 

212  Wisconsin  Corrupt  Practices  Law,  1911,   (Madison,  1912),  pp.  9-11. 

213  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  23-26. 

214  The  Terrell  Election  Law,  Texas,  (Austin,  1908),  p.  33. 

2i5  Statutes  Relating  to  Elections,  Oregon,  (Salem,  1911),  pp.  179,  180. 

216  Sections  of  the  General  Code  Pertaining  to  Elections,  Ohio,  (Colum- 
bus, 1911),  p.  29. 


124  APPLIED  HISTORY 

217  Wisconsin  Corrupt  Practices  Law,  1911,  (Madison,  1912),  pp.  13-15. 

218  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Regulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  19-21. 

219  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Eegulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  6,  20,  21. 

220  Jelf  s  The  Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices  Prevention  Acts,  1883  and 
1895,  (London,  1905),  pp.  89-115,  130-133. 

221  Laws  Governing  Primary  Elections,  Florida,  1909,  (Tallahassee, 
1909),  p.  9. 

222  Election  Law  of  Indiana,  1909,  (Indianapolis,  1910),  p.  111. 

223  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  p.  34. 

224  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Regulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  6,  20. 

225  Wisconsin  Corrupt  Practices  Law,  1911,  (Madison,  1912),  p.  16. 

226  Supplement  to  an  Act  to  Regulate  Elections,  New  Jersey,  (Trenton, 
1911),  pp.  '9,  10. 

227  A  candidate  for  Congress  in  one  of  the  Iowa  districts  reported  in 
1910  without  giving  dates  or  names  of  the  contributors,  "Miscellaneous 
small  contributions,  $295";  and  as  expenditures,  without  giving  date  or 
names  of  persons  to  whom  the  payments  were  made,  "Advertising,  $171.50. 
Buttons,  $130." 

Another    candidate     reported    expenditures    as     follows: — "7/15/10  — 
11/8/10  —  Sundry  persons  —  E.  E.  Fare,  Livery,  etc.  $105." 
Another  candidate  for  Congress  reported:  — 
' '  June  7  to  Nov.  8  — 

Eailroad,  sleeping  car  and  auto  fares    .  .  .         $362. 

Hotel  bills $345. 

Newspaper   subscriptions   and   advertising,   photos, 

cuts,  printing,  and  postage  and  incidentals       $1992.75 
Subscription    to    Eepublican    Congressional    Cam- 
paign Committee $3000.00." 

Of  the  statements  of  the  Congressional  candidates  examined  only  two 
Teported  contributions  from  the  Eepublican  National  Committee  —  one  re- 
porting a  contribution  of  $500,  the  other  of  $1000. 

A  candidate  for  Eailroad  Commissioner  reported  as  part  of  his  expend- 
itures $25  paid  for  a  suit  of  clothes  lost  on  a  bet  —  seemingly  forgetting 
Iowa's  law  against  betting.     The  following  explanation  is  added:   "I  in- 


CORRUPT  PRACTICES  LEGISLATION  125 

elude  the  suit  of  clothes  as  I  think  that  if  I  had  not  been  a  candidate  for 
Railroad  Commissioner,  I  might  not  have  gotten  into  the  argument  that 
ended  in  my  betting  the  suit  that  X  would  carry  the  X  district." 

One  successful  candidate  for  Congress  reported  that  he  had  received  no 
contributions,  but  made  no  statement  regarding  his  expenditures. 

228  One  of  these  Iowa  organizations,  disavowing  any  special  political 
ends,  advances  as  one  of  their  principles  that  ' '  we  pledge  ourselves  that  we 
will  vote  for  no  candidate  of  any  party  who  is  opposed  to  the  inviolate 
rights  and  the  personal  freedom  guaranteed  to  the  individual  citizen  by  the 
constitution." — See  Declaration  of  Principles  and  Platform  of  the  German- 
American  Liberal  Citizens  League  of  Iowa,  adopted  by  the  State  Convention 
at  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa,  February  1,  1910,  p.  2. 

229  An  example  of  this  would  be  the  money  which  it  is  said  was  ex- 
pended by  local  representatives  of  the  railroads  in  the  Iowa  State  campaign 
of  1910. 

230  General  Laws,  Special  Session  of  1912,  Minnesota,  (Minneapolis, 
1912),  pp.  23-26. 

The  act  providing  for  Federal  control  of  newspapers  passed  during  the 
1911-1912  session  of  Congress,  requiring  a  newspaper  to  publish  a  sworn 
statement  as  to  their  owners,  creditors,  and  officers,  and  to  label  as  adver- 
tisements any  paid  matter  appearing  in  their  editorial  or  news  columns,  may 
make  State  legislation  unnecessary  along  these  lines. 

231  Statutes  Belating  to  Elections,  Oregon,   (Salem,  1911),  pp.  179,  180. 

232  Wisconsin  Corrupt  Practices  Law,  1911,  (Madison.  1912),  pp.  13-16. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


)    000  870  851    3 


